Amy Coney Barrett

[BillBrown]

@Ben_Natuf

TX court of appeals, Perry administration, Trump put her on the federal circuit

I found her and am reading up on her. Thanks

[Camp]

Condi Rice?

She would likely decline.

[BillBrown]

@Camp

Condi Rice?

She would likely decline.

She’s pro gun control. She’s basically a liberal. She doesn’t even have a law degree- Political Science.

[matt1618]

Disagree. I don’t think Barrett would be a reason to lose the Senate and White House. I think the threat of stacking the court, which they will do regardless of who he picks, if they win the Senate, is a losing issue for Democrats and would not propel them to win the Senate. Republicans need to run against that threat and highlight that.

[gooddad409]

@matt1618

If they attack her again on her religious faith, that will be a loser for Democrats. I think, for a woman, who has adopted 2 Haitian kids, who is strong, being attacked will be a loser for Democrats. I don’t see the drawback that others see here in nominating her. We’ve tried people like Souter without much of a record, assured by Conservative John Sununu as a pro-lifer, others thought he would be a conservative, look what turned out. Oconnor, Kennedy, Souter, even Roberts recently, I’ve had enough of these Republican appointees that rule against us.

Amen. Me too.

[gooddad409]

@Camp

Condi Rice?

She would likely decline.

Rice is a moderate at best. I actually like the front runner. Barrett.

[Ben_Natuf]

cornyn and cruz both like her, she served under perry. tx 5th circuit court of appeals, and now fed circuit.

Ada Brown

[Ben_Natuf]

didn’t say she would be a reason to lose. said she adds nothing to the chance of winning.

[vaard]

the fun will really start when barrett, if appointed, makes a decision that cons disagree with…

[Smyrna]

Amy’s perty.

[DMK]

@Smyrna

Amy’s perty.

[markdido]

@once-ler

@Ben_Natuf

re elect trump and the court will be conservative for the next 35 years.

I have no idea what conservatism is today.

You should ask some of the staunch conservatives here who post as liberals.
They know apparently

[gooddad409]

@markdido

@once-ler

@Ben_Natuf

re elect trump and the court will be conservative for the next 35 years.

I have no idea what conservatism is today.

You should ask some of the staunch conservatives here who post as liberals.
They know apparently

The “true” conservatives?

[PAmoderate37]

@markdido

You should ask some of the staunch conservatives here who post as liberals.
They know apparently

It seems the only thing today’s conservatives (Trumpers) care about is how often they can trigger “libs”.

[amadeus]

@PAmoderate37

@markdido

You should ask some of the staunch conservatives here who post as liberals.
They know apparently

It seems the only thing today’s conservatives (Trumpers) care about is how often they can trigger “libs”.

Conservatives are extinct. And to think I used to admire them for their conservatism.

[WuWei]

When she gets confirmed, it is another historic occasion.

[FreeAndClear]

@vaard

the fun will really start when barrett, if appointed, makes a decision that cons disagree with…

Like gorsuch… which is interesting because this means that the ephors @WuWei copyright are controlled by their subjective position rather than actual interpretation.

They can dress it up as much as they want to in precedent but at the end of the day they write their opinions (specifically only in case involving social issues) with a view towards which way the public is leaning. This was true for brown v board of Ed, bush v gore etc

[WuWei]

Of course it is. And why claims such as “Strzok and Page were biased but it didn’t interfere with their work” are utterly ridiculous.

The SCOTUS routinely turns down 2nd Amendment cases because they know they are trapped by the law. If they have to rule, they have to rule according to the law. So they simply refuse to rule.

They wiggle to confirm all the time. Look at Roberts and obamacare.