[Architect of Avalon]

Bad choice.

The first goal is to get a Justice who will rule in accordance with the Constitition.

Hardiman would not.

[Artemis Webb]

Re #6:

How do you “get a justice” if you can’t get them confirmed?

[thoughtomator]

Do you have a basis for that claim?

[skimbell]

Let me get this right...

Hardiman would rule on cases without consideration of the constitution.

That's what you're saying, and you stick by that?

[Governor Dinwiddie]

#6: "Bad choice".

Indeed it is. Of all the candidates, Hardiman has the worst record on immigration. He fancies himself as something of an "honorary amigo", having worked pro bono for border jumpers.

And Hardiman was a friend and huge favorite of Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter. He is very weak on immigration and referred to illegal aliens as persons "Hispanic persons who haven't been inspected yet".

It was Hardiman who said he worked with Spanish-speaking clients pro bono. At his 2003 confirmation hearing to Pennsylvania federal court, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced him as having done political asylum, domestic violence, and employment cases for indigent Spanish-speaking immigrants. During testimony, Hardiman discussed winning political asylum for an El Salvadorian client, and representing a Colombian woman threatened by cocaine cartels. — Law & Crime

[Kazan]

The first goal is to get a Justice who will rule in accordance with the Constitition. Hardiman would not.

What evidence do you have for that claim?

[gdc61]

Based on exactly what ?...

[Ancesthntr]

“Bad choice.
The first goal is to get a Justice who will rule in accordance with the Constitition.

Hardiman would not. “

---

This guy is a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, as written and intended by the Founders - and anyone who can do that in a legal environment will likely analyze ALL issues on the same basis - AS WRITTEN AND INTENDED at that time.

GOA, which is far more hardline on the 2nd than the NRA, backs this guy. What’s not to like?

I don’t understand where you get your information.

As for Barrett, I will be pleased if she is the actual nominee...but she might better be saved for RBG’s position, as it’ll be a woman replacing a woman. Not that such will appease the so-called feminists, as they are FINOs, and in reality just Leftists masquerading as feminists. However, such a choice will resonate with many people outside of the Beltway.

Hardiman will be a VERY fine nominee, if he’s actually the one.

[Hugin]

“Bad choice.

The first goal is to get a Justice who will rule in accordance with the Constitition.

Hardiman would not.”

Based on what? Give me your best example of where he hasn’t followed the law as written and/or the Constitution. So far I haven’t seen one.