Politics and Religion

A liberal says Amy Coney Barrett is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge
lester_prairie 12 Reviews 679 reads
posted

"when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one"

and the Second Amendment. When the ACA says the mandate is a “penalty” and Justice Roberts upholds it as a “tax,” that is pretty outrageous judicial legislation. So the correct vote here would be “no” as she would have cast.  

       No harm to the present lawsuit anyway as the Dems will have a do over and simply moot it by restating the mandate and declaring it is a tax. As to the Second Amendment, she is also correct that NON VIOLENT felons (I did see where one clueless poster said she wants even violent felons to have guns – nonsense) should not lose Second Amendment rights. Talk about over inclusive. She is just reading the statute and Constitution which is what a judge is suppose to do.

Finally, as tot he GOP hypocrisy, just because the GOP abused its power in 2016 does not mean the Dems should do so in 2020. The president picks the nominee- period.

A good choice by Mr. Trump.

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to rule that Obama Care was a tax and thus constitutional, now that the mandate has been repealed the decision that ACA is now unconstitutional should be a very easy one to reach.  

 
As for the second amendment I am surprised to see you so open minded about it, and naturally I agree. I don't think ANYONE, except maybe the ANTIFA crowd wants violent felons have guns, but is a person with a marijuana conviction, or lets say someone convicted of tax evasion REALLY a danger to the community.  

 
And YES, I even agree that the GOP abused their power in 2016, and the Dems are trying to do the same thing here in 2020. There is NOTHING in the Constitution preventing the POTUS from making a nomination right up until his final day in office, it's up to the Senate to either confirm or not confirm the nominee. I think the GOP should have allowed a vote on Garland even if that vote was to NOT confirm. The GOP of course was rolling the dice that Trump would win or we would have ended up with someone a LOT less moderate than Garland who I think was as about as "middle of the road" Supreme Court nominee as we will EVER see again in our lifetimes.  

 
BUT, after all those agreements, I politically this was most definitely the WRONG choice by Trump, he could have locked up the vote in Florida and gotten millions of Latino votes if he had picked  Lagoa instead of the lily white Barret who I agree is kind of a religious kook IMHO and a person who might do more to turn out the Democratic vote than his own base who are already fired up to vote for him. IMO, this was a bad choice by Trump, politically speaking not constitutionally of course. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religious kooks as long as they are "mainstream" religious kooks like Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence from holding very high office in this country.

But I agree that Ms. Lagoa was the politically correct pick, since Florida is a must, must, must win state for Trump.

         Could this be the rare time that Trump made a choice that is best for the nation but not best for Trump, that Trump actually did something that was not in his self interest, that he actually acted like …a President?

Nah- that can’t be it- there must be some other reason.

           As to Amy being a “religious kook,” she has been pretty clear in her public statements that her religious beliefs will not influence her rulings. But here is what I find interesting.  Remember how the knee jerk libs on CNN jumped on Fox darling Jeanine Pirro for arguing that Representative Omar believes in and would advocate Sharia law because she wears a hijab? Yet some of these same libs are effectively making the same argument about Amy because she is in some fringe religious group.

           Got to love hypocrisy, especially when it is clueless.

You have admitted that hypocrisy exists on BOTH sides of the aisle which is totally unacceptable to your former friends.

 
Back to Amy, just because she "claims" her religious beliefs won't influence her rulings I find that VERY hard to believe, People with religious convictions as strong as hers almost unanimously feel that "God's Law" supercedes any law written by man. The same goes for Omar, I firmly believe that if Omar were to ever have any real power that she would indeed impose Sharia Law on the rest of us, fortunately she is only one of 435 members of The House, not one of only 9 members of SCOTUS. At least you can't call me a hypocrite, I am scared of religious whackos of ALL religions. lol

 
I honestly don't know what possessed Trump to pick Barrett. Perhaps it's the fact that she has already been vetted recently and might be easier to confirm in the short window of time the GOP has to get this done. I still wish he had gone with Lagoa, if Trump wants to appeal to POC, appointing three white people in a row to SCOTUS is not the way to do so.

Ideologues also feel their ideology overrides the Constitution.   That's why Dems pick liberal justices and why Reps pick conservative justices.  Otherwise they wouldn't care.

Seven of the justices (including now ACB) are either Catholics or were raised Catholic (Gorsuch was raised Catholic but attends Episcopalian church.)  Two are Jewish. (As was RBG.)

...I have no problem for getting judge Amy. I am not for abortion but I can understand that is a woman choice and I don't want it to be overturned.  

On the other hand, Judge Amy will deny ObamaCare and GOP will never come up with a health care plan and we will have lots of trailer trash GOP dies in middle of America. :)

Hey, I truly don't give a shit :) My Athena insurance deductible annually is $1,000/year and I have only $25 co-pay. More gun, less insurance fo the trailer trash GOP is the solution to cleanse them.

Let the fucking poetic justice go to work.

1.) Because they don't like it?
2.) Because there is some Constitutional issue.?
.
If #2, shouldn't the SCOTUS knock it down and let congress fix the Constitutional problem?

Republicans had more than 6 years to come up with an alternative to the ACA but desperately failed. What makes you think that'll change?

They had two years, and the answer is McCain.

Nothing prevented them from cooking up an alternative when they weren't in power and passing it when they were. They had from 2012 to 2018.

One liberal! What about the thousands of professionals who say Drumpf is unfit for office?

He flat out refused to answer that question when Wallace asked him.

His excuse didn't make any sense (if he answers it will become an issue -- what the hell kind of dodge is that???)
.
But why dodge?   I can think of three quick reasons:
1.) Being for packing the court might lose him net votes.
2.) Being against packing the court might upset his base.
The American people deserve to know the answer to such an important question.  But Biden cares more about winning than telling the American people the truth about his policies.  At least Trump is honest in what he intends to do, whether you agree with him or not.  You know what you're getting.  Biden is trying to sneak into the office (his whole basement strategy in a nutshell.)

Register Now!