Feinsteins Dogma comment was ridiculous as well.
She perfect to replace Ginsburg when the time comes.
Here is their “proof”. Among other things, it says this:
Even more frightening, Barrett belongs to a secretive, cult like Christian group called People of Praise, where women are subordinate to men. The group is straight out of The Handmaid’s Tale.
That’s different and you know it. 
Yes yes of course!
Yes, and it was applying a religious test, which is unconstitutional. Bernie Sanders also did it to someone Trump appointed to a lower court, can’ remember who though.
Dems are very hostile to Christians.
Hell didn’t Ginsburg said that foreign laws influences her.
But that’s OK with Plasma.
This is my guess, assuming of course that Trump gets to choose Ginsburg’s appointment. In fact if Rs increase their Senate majority, and a vacancy opens up, I think Barrett will be the pick, even if the departing (or departed if a sudden death like Scalia) justice is a man.
I just don’t think McConnell has the votes to get Barrett confirmed right now. He will next year if more Rs are added to the Senate.
Ginsburg appears to sleep through much of the proceedings and then rules based on her feelings but that’s ok with the left.
1 Like
In an article she co-wrote with John H. Garvey entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” Barrett criticized a Supreme Court justice who once testified that a judge’s oath to the Constitution should “alone” govern how they rule from the bench. Barrett wrote that that was not a “proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.”
This is what they were talking about.
Meant to say Ginsburg’s replacement, not appointment.
Also, I’m wildly speculating of course, but if Rs increase their Senate majority might Thomas decide to retire during a time when he knows he will be replaced by a conservative?
That’s Ginsburg’s big problem now. Even if she really wants to retire she won’t because she wants a liberal in her place. She just assumed it would be Hillary replacing her. Why she didn’t retire during Obama’s second term though is a good question. She’s 85 now.
You in the court when they hear cases now?
And then Trump nominates Kethledge and they all sigh of relief.
Even thou he’s pretty conservative himself…and a gun nut.
Okay.
She said
““I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it,””
What do you suppose that means?
It means she does not feel bound by court precedents. I agree with her on this. If precedent had been followed there would have been no Brown vs Board of Education.
That would be great. As for Ginsburg she can’t hang on forever. She is quite apt to have to go to a nursing home or pass on in the next very few years.
We all pass at some point.
Ok well that is a somewhat more credible source than the other one. But she said so in an aritcle, not a legal brief.
Besides that, are we really going to say judges don’t let personal and/or religious beliefs come into play as they make decisions?
For example, Kagan in her dissent regarding union dues not being mandatory said something along the lines of “this means unions won’t be getting enough money”.
That’s a personal opinion and belief which should have no bearing on whether or not it is unconstitutional to make union dues mandatory.
Exactly my line of thinking. If repugs pick up 4 or 5 senate seats she will get in.
But more importantly it will be poetic justice IMO…and the howls from libs would fill my nights with glee.
They’re propping her up with stick.
It probably means she is a constitutionalist rather than a “living breathing constitution” person.
