I’m against appointing a woman just for the sake of appointing a woman. However, the asinine comments here directed at Barrett, simply BECAUSE she is a woman are the very definition of groupthink and hypocrisy. It’s exactly what the left does.
Barrett has a history of being quit Conservative. She’s was a Scalia clerk and pupil and her writing and history shows that she is in the mold of Scalia.
History is full of male “conservatives” who drifted to the left on the court.
To make insane comments like “women tend to evolve” when history has shown no such thing.
There have only been four women on the court. None of them evolved.
Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are and were hardcore leftists when they were appointed and they remain so.
O’Connor was a squishy moderate when Reagan nominated her, and she remained that way throughout her term on the court.
There are far more examples of males who were promised to be conservative who went full libtard after they were appointed.
Indeed - some of these comments are ridiculous - that we have a long history supposedly of female SCOTUS nominees who “grow” and drift to the left. We’ve had one - count them - one female GOP SCOTUS nominee. No others. In 5-4 decisions she was the deciding vote on many cases, the overwhelming majority of the time she was with the conservative bloc, though also on the other side on some rather big cases...however, her philosophy was fairly consistent over her 25 year tenure as a Justice. The comments made above by many are objectively false statements. We do, however, have a long history of GOP male SCOTUS nominees drifting to the left - sometimes dramatically to the left. Souter actually was conservative very early in his tenure, voting with Scalia a majority of the time. However, in the end, he was one of the most liberal members of the court, if not the most liberal, in competition with Stevens (also a male GOP appointee).
You make good points. I think most folks who are against another woman on the Supreme Court are thinking of female judges at state level as well as Republican women in the Senate and House. A lot of those have “evolved” over the years or are liberal Republicans which seems like an oxymoron to some of us. And some of us truly dislike the current female members of the court and worry about their negative influence on another woman judge. We could all be wrong.
But, as I said, you do make good points.
Here is what Barrett had to say about John Roberts on OCare
... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
Chew on that all you women haters.
Exactly
Great post. Thanks.
‘To make insane comments like “women tend to evolve” when history has shown no such thing.’
perhaps...but voting history has proven that females trend left, particularly since ‘social justice’ has been tagged as as a cultural virtue...
Agreed on all points.
On the positive side is that, if I recall correctly, the woman is the mother of 7 kids, is reviled by leftist senators for her deep Catholic faith, and she has excelled at so many levels that one can’t be impressed by her intellect and work ethic.
My sense is that MEN are subject to made up charges of sexual impropriety in this age. It’s hard to imagine that she would have had time or inclination to be hitting on anyone. I think such an accusation against her would be laughed at.
Good post.
Nobody should have a problem with a woman who is picked because she was the best candidate.
The problem is that the list is predominantly male, so, odds of the best candidate being a female are statistically low. Because of those odds, if he picks a woman, it may be legitimate to suspect she was picked partly because she was a woman.
If that happens and her being a woman was part of the appeal, - it’s not the end of the world. As a conservative male, there is part of me that wants to stick it to the Left by having it be conservative women who break the “glass ceiling”.
The fact that the first black on the Supreme Court was Clarence Thomas, a conservative, and not a Lefty, has been an endless source of shadenfreud.
Very solid analysis.