I was hoping to make this a poll. If one can explain how to make it a poll, I would appreciate it.
Looking for Yes or No and possibly a one or two sentence reply on why you feel as you do.
I do support her nomination. I like the textualist approach. The legislature should do a better job of crafting their laws, and do it themselves instead of pawning them off on whatever special interest group that happens to be in favor. If the people do not like the constitution as written, they should go through the steps to change it where it is appropriate. Saying it evolves over time is garbage.
Do you support the nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court
I think she is a competent and capable person with the necessary requirements to be an associate justice. She was appointed within the requirements of the Constitution, and will have been given proper advisement and consent from the Senate (assuming she garners 50%+1 of their vote) as was intended by the framers.
I don’t have a problem with the nomination made by any President.
My problem is with the hypocrisy of the confirmation process between 2016 when a vacancy was left open for over a year compared to hair on fire ramming through in 2020. All based on who the President was/is.
That’s my problem with the nomination. I don’t have a huge problem with a qualified judge sitting on the court, but the methods I have seen deployed to get these judges gives me very little empathy for the GOP when they are not in charge.
“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said during a 2016 Senate meeting. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
“We’re setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year…that you’re not gonna fill a vacant seat of the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today,” Graham continued. “That’s gonna be the new rule.”
I try to focus only on the Constitutional requirements, and whether they are met. I may agree or disagree with how they rule, but I don’t believe that should disqualify them from being seated if they are qualified. I felt the same way about Sotomayer and Kagan, where I strongly disagreed with their policy positions, but they were both qualified and met the Constitutional requirements