Posted on 06/28/2018 4:44:44 AM PDT by 11th_VA
Well, yeah. I would be in that half because I would like it legal if the mother’s life was in danger. I love children but there are circumstance where neither is likely to survive if the pregnancy goes full term.
Interesting, thanks. And I’m not a fan either.
I think the media tries to butter up whatever GOP-appointed Justice seems to be in that swing-vote position on the court, so as to try to help them to “grow” to the left.
“I’d be curious to see a list of Roberts’ decisions that you consider so bad that they make him a “disgrace to the bench.”
List? Who needs a list? The man is a joke from now until the day he overturns himself on the affordable care act.
“Wouldn’t that depend on how the repealing decision was written?“ Not really, not unless congress has passed some secret antiabortion legislation that we don’t know about. The Court isn’t going to stand up there and say “and henceforth to eternity abortion across all the land is illegal!”
Pro-choice Democrat Byron White wrote the dissent for Roe, in which he correctly pointed out the constitution was silent on the matter.
Trump says the list is down to five, two of them women.
Who do you think the other woman is?
Elaine Chao.
Just kidding.
Britt Grant? She hasn’t even been confirmed to the 11th Circuit yet, but Trump could point to her service in the Supreme Court of GA. And she’s from Stanford Law, so she would break the Harvard/Yale monopoly while still being from a top-3 (or at least top-5) law school.
Joan Larsen, I think of the 6th, 49 years old. Would put pressure on StabenCow.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT?
__________
In May 2017, President Donald Trump picked Barrett to fill a vacant seat on the 7th Circuit Court. Her nomination was supported by recommendations from hundreds of colleagues and students. One letter, signed by 49 Notre Dame faculty, read:
She is a brilliant teacher and scholar, and a warm and generous colleague. She possesses in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity. Indeed, it is a testament to Amy's fitness for this office that every full-time member of our faculty has signed this letter. … Despite our differences, we unanimously agree that our constitutional system depends upon an independent judiciary staffed by talented people devoted to the fair and impartial administration of the rule of law. And we unanimously agree that Amy is such a person.
In September, Barrett was brought before a Senate panel to give a breakdown of her legal philosophy. But what unfolded was a grilling over her Catholic principles.
Ahead of the hearings, Barrett had been vilified for previously written work examining tensions between Catholic principles and established case law. A coalition of left-wing activists voiced alarm at her nomination, asserting the Notre Dame professor "would put her personal beliefs ahead of the law" in cases where the two conflict.
"Stunningly, Barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs," the group argued.
But supporters countered that, based on a reading of Barrett's own work, such allegations were legally unsound.
As they pointed out, Barrett has explicitly stated that "judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge." She's also suggested that judges should recuse themselves in cases where their religious beliefs run counter to their judicial responsibility.
The detractors' position was soundly refuted by legal analysts. Still, certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee echoed the activists' claims.
Referencing Barrett's 1998 law review article, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," Sen. Feinstein pressed the professor on the depth of her faith, insinuating that her Catholic principles would compromise her ability to rule fairly.
"When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you," Feinstein quipped. "And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years, in this country."
"It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction," Barrett answered.
I just realized that the second woman might be Joan Larsen, who turns 50 in December. She served in the MI Suprene Court and last year was confirned as a judge in the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
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.