Posted on 09/25/2020 5:03:50 PM PDT by conservative98
President Trump plans to announce that Amy Coney Barrett will be his nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, multiple sources told Fox News on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
not according to cBS...
Amy Coney Barrett, who is expected to be Mr. Trump’s pick, meets the president’s unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as “always immoral” and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn’t: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.
“She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion rights political group, in an emailed statement to CBS News.
Best not to feed the trolls.
I think a zot is in his future.
“She’s been a judge for 14 years - how can that be?”
Not a federal judge.
I think the other top candidate (Lagoa?) would have been better politically because she would appeal to Catholics and Latinos and possibly women’s rights folk who would like another woman on the court.
But I’m not getting paid tje big bucks to make these calls and Trump’s instincts are probably telling him to make this fight if he chooses Barret
The distinction between Federal and state judges isn’t terribly relevant. There have been SCOTUS justices before without any Federal experience. Heck, without any judicial experience at all.
Experience as a state judge is actually completely relevant as you’re required to interpret the intersect between state and Federal law, something SCOTUS has to address regularly in many cases.
She has been an appellate-level judge for that entire tenure of 14 years. She doesn’t have to be a “Federal” judge to be a judge and have an judicial record.
State judges CANNOT hear or rule on cases that fall under the exclusivity of federal jurisdiction.
Yes, there have been justices who had little or no judicial experience (Elena Kagan is one); but the lack of such experience gives a senate fence-sitter an excuse to reject a nominee. That was my point.
“She has been an appellate-level judge for that entire tenure of 14 years.”
In STATE court, not Federal court. Again, my point was and is that her lack of experience on the FEDERAL bench can give senate fence-sitters an excuse to deny her nomination. As I also stated, the lack of judicial experience is in and of itself not an impediment to affirmation, but can — and if wielded by a senate fence-sitter — will be an excuse to vote NAY on a nomination. Believe me, if Lagoa is the nominee Collins and Murkowski will cite her lack of federal experience as a justification for voting NAY.
The ad was out before BArrett was chosen and it says they will support whoever Trump picked.
Just think, he might nominate someone else and all this was to distract from his true nomination...
“State judges CANNOT hear or rule on cases that fall under the exclusivity of federal jurisdiction.”
You are correct as to exclusively Federal issues. However, the vast majority of issues addressed by SCOTUS aren’t exclusively Federal. The only truly exclusive issues for Federal jurisdiction are suits between states, bankruptcy, patent/trademark/copyright, admiralty, antitrust, and a few others. Think about how many cases have arisen over the years at SCOTUS that are outside those areas; it is most. The vast majority of Federal issues arise not when it is exclusively Federal jurisdiction but rather concurrent jurisdiction in which a Federal question predominates (or diversity jurisdiction).
State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and thus given power to hear almost any case arising under either Federal or state law, except those of exclusive federal jurisdiction (which, again, is not most issues that come up). Most cases implicate both state and Federal issues and, where not directly on an issue of exclusive jurisdiction can be heard by state courts.
That doesn’t mean a defendant might not try to remove it to Federal court on either Federal question or diversity of citizenship grounds, but there is no bar on state courts hearing it where it’s an issue of non-exclusive jurisdiction which, again, is most cases.
And so, state court judges do still often run into interpretation of Federal issues, including matters of constitutional rights, which is directly relevant to serving on SCOTUS.
I don’t know what will give me more joy: Watching the extreme liberal angst or seeing Roberts liberal tendencies defanged.
FOR ALL FREEPERS WHO DISTRUST HER FOR ADOPTING BLACK FOREIGN BORN BABIES
she talks about it here around 5 minutes in
Be informed y’all
She should bring an AR platform 12 gauge high cap
Let them do all the hard work of pushing an amendment through. Either that or they should STFU.
Believe me, if Lagoa is the nominee Collins and Murkowski will cite her lack of federal experience as a justification for voting NAY.
That argument would have been difficult sell given they highly regard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who served as a judge for 6 years at the state level and was a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals when Reagan nominated her for the Supreme Court and she was confirmed unanimously.
“That argument would have been difficult sell given they highly regard Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who served as a judge for 6 years at the state level and was a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals when Reagan nominated her for the Supreme Court and she was confirmed unanimously.”
My comment about judicial experience dealt SPECIFICALLY with lack of experience on the federal bench.
The U.S. is not the same country that it was forty years ago (O’Connor joined SCOTUS in 1981).
Reagan nominated O’Connor as a favor to Barry Goldwater, and at the time she was considered a “lightweight” (read some of the news articles at the time).
Things were political back then, but nowhere near the stark political polarization that exists today.
For over 30 years as a litigation analyst in the insurance industry I dealt with a great many very high profile cases in both state and federal court. Generally speaking, state court judges were pretty piss poor, and the vast majority were politicians first; and we ALWAYS tried to get the case removed to federal court, if the controversy warranted it, as the caliber of judges in federal court was far superior.
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.