SOURCE: PDT has made his decision to nominate Amy Coney Barrett as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Twitter ^ | Twitter.com/OfficeofMike | Michael J Morrison

[MountainWalker]

This guy is followed by Cernovich, Posobiec and James Woods. I know at least Cern and Posobiec are pretty well connected with the Trump Admin, so I think this is somewhat solid. We'll know for sure in 24h.

[dirtboy]

Why do the people need ANY wildcards like foreign adoption, so now the people must taxpayer raise two more kids.

Would you be kind enough to translate that into something resembling comprehensible English?

[jpsb]

She is far from a lib, she was trained by Scilia and she was the only nominee to tell congress bad law should be overturned if it conflicted with our constitution. Just pay attention to who the rats attack the most. (hint Judge Barrett).

[laplata]

saw a retweet of some leftist a-hole on twitter who said that she “Bought” two black kids..leftists are such vile scum

><

They really really really are such vile scum. They’re becoming more vile by the day and I expect Walk Away to pick up speed.

[pbear8]

all churches are in on this third world immigration

It's never mentioned at my church.

[TBP]

Perhaps he will, on later pick. He’s likely to have to replace at least one woman.

[dirtboy]

She is far from a lib, she was trained by Scilia and she was the only nominee to tell congress bad law should be overturned if it conflicted with our constitution

But ... but ... but ... She's FEMALE!

[laplata]

Good reminder. We can put nothing past the vile bastards.

[laplata]

I’m guessing Amul Thapar just to throw them into a loop.

><

Me, too.

[Mrs. Don-o]

:>D

[Mr Rogers]

We once looked at adopting while in New Mexico. My wife had just given birth. The lady running the classes pulled us aside and recommended we not pursue it. Why? Because many of the kids available would be 7-8 years old, been sexually abused, and she said the baby would be at risk. She herself had adopted 3 kinds, but said there were some “difficult times” preventing abuse.

We looked in to it later, in California. The woman running the local program told us since we were military, we couldn’t offer a permanent home. We were “too transient” to adopt! Pretty sure she was lying, but it wasn’t worth a legal fight.

[Mr Rogers]

Kids, not “kinds”. Shouldn’t post while eating...

[jpsb]

Not only is she female she is a very attractive female.

She resume is spectacular so she can not be attacked on that. So the haters will have to attack her gender (bad idea) her religion (bad idea) or her kids (really bad idea). win win win for us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please consider another point of view, based on experience. See #128.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’m sorry, I meant #178. Though the other one was good, too. G’ night, God bless.

[precisionshootist]

Congratulations on the dumbest post yet on this thread. Ignore the accolades. She's a she, therefore she must be a liberal. Do you realize you just insulted all the fine women conservatives on this site, as well as the wives of the conservative men? This kind of crap is pathetic. "

Nope, my post about her accolades has nothing to do with being a women or not. You need to reread my post.

" Wow way to many recommendations to even have a chance of knowing what that means. She’s a lib, bet on it. The odds that she’s not lib are astronomical.

The recommendations and accolades by law professors is the problem. That should by default be viewed as a negative until proven otherwise.

As far as being a women as a disqualification then yes, because that's really all we truly know at this point. Yes there ARE conservative women but they are far more rare than conservative men and there has never been a conservative female on the supreme court. It's just a fact, deal with it.

[dirtboy]

I read your ignorant post loud and clear. You are dumb enough to project all prospective women SCOTUS nominees from three Dem appointees and a GOP appointee made when the Dems controlled the Senate. So, with all due respect, go piss up a rope with your sexist bullcrap.

[familyop]

Here's a nice document that Barrett wrote about her opinion in favor of Catholic judges recusing themselves from death penalty cases. I'm making no comment on it here, because Amy spoke very well for herself.

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases [Information in re. Amy Coney Barrett]
Marquette Law Review, Notre Dame Law School ^ | 1998 | Amy Coney Barrett, John H. Garvey

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases

Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law School
John H. Garvey

Document Type
Article

Publication Date
1998

Publication Information
81 Marq. L. Rev. 303 (1997-1998)

Abstract
The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

Comments
Reprinted with permission of Marquette Law Review.

Recommended Citation
Barrett, Amy Coney and Garvey, John H., "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases" (1998). Journal Articles. 527.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527

(Excerpt) Read more at scholarship.law.nd.edu ...

[familyop]

You might also be very interested in comment #217.

[jpsb]

The recommendations and accolades by law professors is the problem.

Bull, when EVERY professor in your law college recommends you that is a sign of great respect. Particularly at a top school like Notre Dame. There are about 36 clerks at the Supreme Count in any given year. When all of those clerks recommend you that too is a sign of great respect. How you can construe it any other way simple shows bias and bias shows a hidden agenda.

Barrett will make a brilliant Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Scilia.

[precisionshootist]

"She is far from a lib, she was trained by Scilia and she was the only nominee to tell congress bad law should be overturned if it conflicted with our constitution. Just pay attention to who the rats attack the most. (hint Judge Barrett)."

That is a good sign but we need more, a lot more. The worst part of this is all the questions that truly need to be asked are considered off limits. She needs to be asked in an open hearing. When does life begin? Does the 2nd amendment apply to machine guns? If not why? Where does the constitution mandate separation of church and state? If we have the right to private property, how are perpetual property taxes constitutional? If only congress can legislate how is it that bureaucracies can make rules that carry the same weight as laws written by congress and signed by the president? Should bureaucracies be able to make law?

Questions like this is what we need answered to make a decision but we never get any of that base on some BS that the nominee can't say because of the chance of a future case. The it total BS that was made up for the specific reason of enabling leftist radicals to get through a senate confirmation.

The confirmation process is a rigged game.