Allow me to decipher.
Social conservatives = Real Americans.
Somebody is working VERY hard to ensure that this woman is not nominated.
We know who the deepies fear the most.
Bagster
Posted on 07/06/2018 6:11:09 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as the favorite candidate for social conservatives in the debate over who President Trump should pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Barrett — a 46-year old appeals court judge — checks multiple boxes for the right.
Her age will allow her to influence the court for decades, she’s unabashedly conservative and deeply religious, and her gender, conservatives hope, will make it harder for critics to paint her as extreme on women’s rights and healthcare.
Abortion is expected to be at the center of the Senate debate on the next court pick no matter who Trump nominates because of Kennedy’s status as a pivotal vote on the issue.
But picking Barrett would guarantee an explosive confirmation fight in the Senate and likely spark a broader, all-out culture war months before a midterm election where Republicans are battling to keep control of Congress.
Conservatives have rallied around Barrett, who has questioned Roe v. Wade and the court’s deference to legal precedent — raising the prospect that she would be more likely than other picks to vote to overturn the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
She’s in the top tier of contenders.
ETC...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I've said in previous posts that we have to end the monopoly of the east-coast elite liberal universities.
Maybe Trump made the statement to distract people who will be demanding someone from Harvard or Yale. Maybe he wants them to believe the Harvard/Yale stranglehold will carry on while he looks for highly qualified candidates from other universities like Notre Dame.
The left has been working on desensitizing the public when it attacks conservative women — DeVos, Nielsen, Sanders are the most recent examples.
Watch what happens now.
Allow me to decipher.
Social conservatives = Real Americans.
Somebody is working VERY hard to ensure that this woman is not nominated.
We know who the deepies fear the most.
Bagster
The left is going to make “Borking” look like a walk in the park, no matter who Trump picks. So he may as well pick the very best person for the job. They are going to go down fighting and dying regardless, so make it worth the fight.
I like Barrett, and forcing them to vote against her will expose them in a way that voting against any of the others will not. She will set their hair on fire. So for that reason alone, I would like to see him pick her.
If the Democrats who are embracing open borders, socialism, globalism and the dissolution of US law enforcement get crushed in the 2018 election, Coney Barrett will replace the vile Ginsberg.
Whoever he picks has to know this is going to be an ugly fight, and they should not go forward unless they completely understand that, and are prepared to be slandered and possibly, physically assaulted at some point.
In return, Trump should make them the vow that, if they are not confirmed, that he will put them forward again immediately after the election, and they should make the vow that they will do it again if that is what it takes. This is war.
The thing of it is, once you understand that the Dems are going to do this no matter what you do, you no longer have to care what they think. You have to deal with what they do, but you don’t have to care what they think.
This ought to be good, considering its going to be a cat fight with the other 3 women.
I’m almost always against using gender as a factor in decisions. But in this case I think we really need a female nominee. Democrats cannot help themselves from being the misogynistic, sexist bullies they claim we are. They will try to frame their attacks on other grounds, but their hatred for women will come out.
And, because of the brainwashing liberals have done for decades, court decision that are 5 males vs 3 females won’t have the same credibility with the public as it would with a female on the majority.
And it would be good for girls to see a powerful female conservative on the court and not think that if they want to be there one day they need to be a liberal. I used to hate this argument when liberals use it - but I also question and listen to the other side and I’ve come around to thinking there is something to it. Not with every minority/female child (or even most), but with enough that it makes a difference to society.
I don’t think we need a female nominee.
Let me preface my next comments by saying that I am an naked misogynist and outright sexist, and I want Barrett to be the nominee.
I want her to be the nominee, because I believe she is highly qualified, and her background, including her family background, is what is needed on the court in my opinion.
Judge Coney may be the most qualified S.C. jurist since John Marshall & I’d still say to save your distaff ammo for replacing Ginsburg. Wait till you see the whites of the libs eyes. OK - their eyes are likely to be red...
While there may be some advantage to having a conservative women, the two which are being floated have thin records compared to some of the guys. Frankly, Hardiman appears to be the best in my mind. He had been on the circuit for a while and was confirmed with zero opposition.
Heritage says he knows Trumps sister and was the runner up to Gorsuch. Folks who have pointed this out are correct..... Kennedy wanted to see if Trump could make a great pick and after a year, is comfortable the Prez understands the situation. Trump will get a chance to replace a women with a women soon enough.
How about an American-born Asian of legal immigrant parents who escaped communism or other totalitarian regime?
Someone whose parents reared them on nightmare of communism and why they had to escape.
I would not be opposed to that person so long as that person is already a judge with a reviewable record.
However, in this case, I am still for Barrett.
This hard sell on Barrett is suspicious as hell.
Her family background is exactly what turns me off of her.
Two high-powered attorneys have no time to raise 7 kids.
The two-working-parents model is absolutely terrible for the well being of children - it’s not that much better than the single-mother situation.
Kids still have no parent at home the vast majority of the time and that’s not normal or natural.
Careful what you wish for. Notre Dame has been drifting left for couple of generations now.
Who was it that recently gave the graduation speech? Obama?
They’ll have no problem trashing her.
No pubes on the Coke cans please!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.