Posted on 06/28/2018 4:44:44 AM PDT by 11th_VA
“Like”
You managed to contradict yourself in two sentences. What if the best qualified IS a woman? Did that ever occur to you?
The last thing the Left wants is for their aborted babies to live—let alone grow and be nurtured in conservative women and households.
Ain’t happenin’.
I think you’re decades out of date. Since the ‘60s the left has been importing minorities as quickly as they can.
Instead they don’t want to see one of their daughter’s indiscretions leading to low-brow, out-of-wedlock early motherhood.
If Trump nominates a judge with an activist history, the GOP will lose the credibility that sets it apart from the Democrats. All morning Fox has been trying to convince us that John Roberts is not an activist judge and can be safely relied upon to act as a swing vote. Roberts is a corporate shill and a disgrace to the bench. Mercifully, we are dealing with Trump and not FOX.
States rights arguments will be viewed as an erosion, and currently, we have the conflicted marijuana legalization mess going on which illustrates in unambiguous terms the problem with that. You are not going to successfully throw 79% of the electorate into a states rights argument from the current position. You cannot win with 18% of the vote. This would be the very definition of a pyrrhic victory.
The only out would be to pass a law, which frankly, I think is the right thing to do rather than having so much riding on the opinions of unelected judges. The current way of doing things sets up the situation of having permanent campaigns by special interest groups, and how is that working out for our culture and democracy?! The problem is that DC can’t even manage to confirm Trump’s appointments and they cannot pass immigration reform despite a completely impossible situation for our border control agents. They are dysfunctional in the extreme.
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.”
It would be a pyrrhic victory and we would lose the few protections the unborn currently have.
That just makes the U.S. more honest the Europe ... ironically.
That assertion has no logic pattern to support it.
On Varney, just heard that Feinstein told her, “You might be too Catholic to be a judge”. At that point, PDJT immediately added her name to the list. She’s #25.
No!
I would like Trump to pick the MOST QUALIFIED person. The person who won’t be turned by the power of being on the SCOTUS. The person who will follow the Constitution and the Laws of this country. I’m sure there is ONE person on his list that will do that. I don’t care a fig about identity politics. Just please, get someone who will follow the Law and not legislate from the bench. (Have any of the Leftys on the SCOTUS bench EVER voted, actually following the LAW? No. Never.)
Obamacare decision?
Well, I can see FR is getting off to a great start in friendliness this morning!
I’m sick of even qualified womyn. I want a conservative, tough, white guy. You can deal with my opinion or just move on.
If you look at some of the nonsense that has been written by U.S. Supreme Court justices over the last 50 years, I think it's safe to say that you'd get more logic and intellectual coherence out of the Supreme Court if lawyers were disqualified from serving as justices.
Think about that for a moment and realize how far gone the U.S. judiciary is right now.
I voted for Donald Trump because I don't want a politician in the White House.
By the same measure, I don't want lawyers on the Supreme Court anymore. This country would be better off with nine truck drivers on the Supreme Court.
Overturning Roe vs Wade, despite popular belief to the contrary, does not make abortion illegal. It simply reverts back to the individual states to make that decision.
They obviously prefer foreigners from Latin America to black people born here in the U.S.
i agree with you.
So, you point is that Amy Coney Barrett would be a bad choice?
ObamaCare should be overturned as an unconstitutional law for any number of reasons, but the one issue that was the basis of the legal challenge in that case -- namely, the individual mandate -- was the weakest point to use in a Federal court challenge.
The individual mandate is a travesty, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
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.