[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]

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.