Me likey! She’s stronger on the 2nd Amendment than those two Reagan judges she dissented from.
Her support of the Second Amendment is probably the most important quality of a Supreme Court judge.
We can’t let the left talk us out of supporting her,barring any rulings where she rejected the Constitution.
Barrett would definitely be my choice. She at least has a track record of conservative opinions. I’d be a bit wary of Lagoa.. first off, she garnered the votes of 27 dems when she was confirmed. That, along with her relatively scant track record, speaks to a redux of David Souter, who GHWB appointed without knowing his stances on abortion, 2A, etc.
No tendentious verbiage here! It's almost as if the publication doesn't understand that the United States has a published Constitution with, like, words in it and stuff.
The second amendment shall not be infringed. Those committing violent crimes need to pay with their life for the violent crime, so their second amendment shall not be infringed. It is a right we all have no matter what. If it is taken away of one, even seemingly justifiably because of the possibility of misuse, then it can be taken away from everyone.
Violent criminals should not be allowed to continue to terrorize society.
“IMMIGRATION
“In June, Barrett said in a dissenting opinion that she would have let one of Trump’s hardline immigration policies go forward in Illinois. The litigation was over the “public charge” rule, a policy of denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future. Barrett dissented when a three-judge panel voted to halt the policy in Illinois.”
I like it.
I would love to know where she stands on DACA, travel bans, “birthright citizenship”, etc.
Amy is right.
The legal term felony applies to too broad a range of actual crimes to consider the rank of felony alone describing those conditions that should limit 2nd amendment rights. In essence Amy was saying felony was too broad of a term to restrict 2nd amendment rights.
I think Amy may have had federal felony convictions like these (and others) in mind, as not constituting crimes for which 2nd amendment rights should be diminished:
Bond Default
Computer Crime
Concealment of Assets
Contempt of Court
Copyright Matters
Disclosure of Confidential Information
False Statements Relative to Healthcare Matters
False Statement in Application for Unemployment
Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys
Medical/Healthcare Fraud
Partial Birth Abortion
Picketing or Parading
Shoplifting
Suits Against Government Officials
Funny how they dig into Barrett’s opinions, but did not do the same for Ginsburg: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/ruth_bader_ginsburgs_support_for_racial_quotas_was_hidden_from_the_public_during_her_supreme_court_confirmation_hearings.html
Just announced....it’s ACB....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-to-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-to-supreme-court-sources
p
She is suppose to protect and defend our Constitution... nothing more and most certainly nothing less. Could anyone please point out where in the Constitution that makes ‘precedence’ the law of the land? Christ warned US about those that sit in the seat of Moses.
Hope the DEMs really go after her. It seems to make them conservatives for life. Not like Roberts who got in on a 78-22 vote.
A female Scalia. It does not get better than this. Young with many years left on the court, smart legally in the extreme, a strict constitutionaalist. Scalia is looking down and smiling. I love it.