decision was right thing to do, but a stretch of the laws words. I agree with the sentiment, not the decision. how many times will i say that with gorsuch? not as many as with roberts i’m sure… but he was nominated by a “real” conservative… right?
1 Like
Oh im not saying i’m won over here but rather it is a point.
I still support Barrett.
What if one nominated this unproven and she turned out to be more left than right and Trump lost the election?
Then you’ve lost all the way around and blown a great opportunity.
The comments by Feinstein and Harris have to be described as Bigoted because that’s exactly what they are.
unknown? she’s not unknown. she was advanced by the federalist society and rick perry. she is conservative unless she’s hiding her liberalism in some secret plot to get a republican to appoint her.
she, in my opinion, gives the most political benefit and the best chance trump wins reelection and holds the senate. i don’t want a temporary short term victory on the court. i want long term conservativism from it. if barret goes through, trump loses, and the senate falls, say hello to 15 justices and the immediate negation of all he’s achieved on the courts. we’ll have an ultra leftist court for 50 years.
She has very little experience at the federal level. Hence the unknown.
People short on track records have been tried before(in hope) and turned out to be flaming libs.
Just saying.
p.s. The libs are probably going to attempt that 15 justice thing at 1st opportunity regardless of this nominee.
They have to be punished if they try just like when FDR tried it. They lost many many seats.
if trump loses and the senate falls, who’s going to stop them? it won’t be “trying”, they will do it. what good will be taking the senate back? the damage will be done
All that could happen with a risky pick as well that turned out to be a lib.
Souter was thought to be a conservative at one point.
the point I’m making, is that we must do everything possible to ensure either trump wins and holds the senate, or at minimum we hold one of the two. if we hold either the wh or senate, the dems can’t go forward and we can keep what we’ve gained. everything must go toward that because if we lose both, there will not be any coming back in our lifetimes. every decision trump and the gop make from this point until nov 3rd, must be made to maximize political benefit and give the best chance of winning. brown does that. lagoa to a lesser degree. barret not at all.
Well at least they probably cannot label her a sex offender. So there’s that.
I respect your opinion but disagree. I don’t know if Brown would change more than a minimum of votes.
I’ve been waiting too long to get to see Ginsburg(27 year thorn in the side) replaced to take such a gamble with her replacement. Just my opinion.
I can’t get too excited about Nancy wanting to impeach again. First, she needs to find another charge. Secondly as a famous witch one said, “what difference does it make?”
The House cannot use impeachment to stop a Senate confirmation hearing. It’s a non starter. Bring on Shifty! Who cares?
how does Barret add anything politically to enhance the chance of holding either the WH or Senate?
If the answer is nothing, then nominating and confirming her is a moot point as , if the dems take the wh and senate (which is more likely nominating her than one of the others), she will be one of a minority of justices on a 15 member court.
at this point which is the bigger gamble?
Nominate Brown, watch the dems explode, keep the wh and Senate and get 2 or 3 more justices in the next 4 years. Even if she does not turn out to be 100% she’s an improvement and we get more. Nominate and confirm Barret, lose the Senate and WH and she’ll be in the minority by February.
There’s no reason to think nominating Brown will accomplish any of that.
Go with the more qualified and proven.
There is every reason to believe it.
Trump has spent a lot of time trying to make inroads into the Black community and it has made a difference. Nominating an acceptable to conservatives Black woman would further that, and might get him enough votes from the community to reach that 12% threshold that makes it almost impossible for Biden to win. Couple that with democrats attempting to stop yet another AA, and a woman at that from getting on the court, and it will also keep some democrat black voters home in disgust. It may be enough to ensure victory.
I don’t think anyone believes legal president is permanent. Brown v Board of Education unanimously overturned Plessy v Ferguson. I can name many more.
1 Like
there are many scotus justices who have put an unhealthy amount of deference toward stare decisis. which of course is just their way of saying ■■■■ the constitutional issue, we’re going to keep doing it
Degrees of deference doesn’t mean that any judge or legal scholar believes that all precedents are permanent. I don’t believe you can find one person who claims to believe that.
never claimed it
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.
its not that its a drawback, its that it’s a non factor. i don’t believe we can ignore political implications and advantages here. the stakes are too high to not take advantage where its possible
