Posted on 09/26/2020 2:36:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
No it was her professor who said she was the best student he ever had when he wrote her a recommendation to be Justice Scalia’s law clerk.
That’s what it’s been about all this time. It wouldn’t hurt to have souter retire also
She’s a blessing. Thank you Lord. Amen.
Wow, we live in such magnificent times.
Excellent!
God Bless Our President for his nominee!
If she's truly Scalia in heels then it would be fantastic. Scalia is the gold standard, along with Thomas.
True, but a glaring difference is Gorsuch was a Kennedy clerk and LEFT the Catholic Church for some ultra-liberal SJW Episcopalian church with a feminazi pastor, happily sitting in the pews every Sunday listening to her babbling about lesbian rights.
Plenty of FReepers here thought that magically made him a Scalia clone and "proven originalist" anyway (apparently merely being on Trump's "list" automatically made him one), and erupted in orgasms, posting bizarro stuff like "God bless PDJT for KEEPING his campaign pledge to give us a pro-life judge!!"
I have to wonder if they were smoking crack pipes before posting those remarks.
It was basically akin to reacting to Carter's 1976 win like it was Reagan's 1980 victory. "Hooray, CARTER WON!! Looks like the American people just picked a hardcore GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN to replace Gerald Ford! I can't WAIT to have four years of CARTER in the White House!! WOOOOOO!!!"
Yep. ANY judge with an "R" next to their name nominated with Trump will be marketed as "a solid Scalia-like protege" and a "proven originalist" and a "devout loving parent who simply believes its the job of judges to interpret the law as written and not inject their own views into the matter or legislate from the bench"
The right's standard "talking points" have gotten as tiresome as the left's (where ANY judge nominated by Trump is a bible-thumping racist homophobe who wants to roll back civil rights and "take us back to the 1950s with women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen"
It's gotten very tiresome hearing BOTH sides having their scripted "talking points" ready to go REGARDLESS of who the judge is.
Already heard that she is not a real woman for opposing infanticide
Forget about history, what do you think of Barrett?
Can they afford an editor?
She’s a solid choice - hasn’t stopped some of the FR concern trolls from wringing their hands though.
It's not about Trump, it's about you and me. Catholic leaders. Pro-life leaders. Conservative leaders. Not doing our jobs to vet candidates.
Trump told pro-lifers to give him names for judges. We gave him Amy Barrett because she looks like a model for what a female Catholic pro-life judge should be, not because of anything she has said or done in public because nothing she has said or done in public would lead anyone to believe that she will overturn Roe or generally rule according to any particular philosophy. Yes, she's a member of the Federalist Society, but the Federalist Society includes a lot of Democrats and Never Trumpers, and Gorsuch and Roberts.
Exactly. Gorsuch’s church was a major red flag.
Barrett’s comments on Roe (”unlikely to be repealed”) are a major red flag too.
But beyond the red flags there’s a lack of green flags. We are still trying to find Bork-era candidates with no opinions about abortion or other controversial topics. Times have changed. Trump made the 2016 election about nominating a certain kind of judge, not just a constitutionalist but a pro-life judge who will overturn Roe.
And then we give him the same old bland candidates, label them pro-life or constitutionalist, and then act shocked and disappointed when they turn out to be liberals on the bench.
Trust Sessions.
RE: It’s not about Trump, it’s about you and me.
I beg to differ. It is MORE about Trump than you and me. After all, HE makes the final decisions and his job is to thoroughly vet a candidate. Yes, we can help him with our input, but ultimately,he has to make a decision and given that he has barely 2 months to make it since he’s facing a win or lose election, he has to do it ASAP.
RE: We gave him Amy Barrett because she looks like a model for what a female Catholic pro-life judge should be
Yes, and she has a RECORD, and a REPUTATION. Other than those, how else is Trump (or even WE OURSELVES) going to base decision on?
Even if it were another candidate X, Trump still needs to base his decision on RECORD, REPUTATION and CHARACTER.
Could his perception of that person result in an eventual disappointment? Yes, it’s possible. But then again it might be a good choice. Given his human limitations, WHAT ELSE is he going to base his decision on?
All we can say for now is this — BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ( and what we CAN KNOW ), and given the constraints of time, he made the best choice possible.
RE: Barrett’s comments on Roe (”unlikely to be repealed”) are a major red flag too.
OK, which person among Trump’s possible candidates will say OPENLY — “YES, ROE v. WADE CAN BE REPEALED and WILL BE IF I MADE THE DECISION?” Give us a name.
Having a Biden moment or did I miss something in the nuance?
The fact that there are none IS THE PROBLEM.
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.