I can see the logic in that, since every Democrat will have his/her “NO” rubber stamp ready regardless of the nominee.Originally Posted by Yung
Amy Comey Barrett
Barbara Lagoa
Joan Larson
Allison Jones Rushing
Other
I can see the logic in that, since every Democrat will have his/her “NO” rubber stamp ready regardless of the nominee.
I'd like to see Barrett as Ginsburg's replacement; looks like the prevailing winds are blowing that way, too.
Hopefully, the Republicans will minimize the drama that they can control by foregoing the circus side show that any hearing will most certainly become. There is nothing to be gained by allowing such a display to unfold.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
I would have said Barrett but I think it will be Lagoa now for the reasons already stated.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
Exactly. That's why I want her to be confirmed. This is our last, best chance of protecting the 2nd.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I think it will be Lagoa; the draw of being able to rub all the liberal noses in the fact that he appointed a woman of color from a refugee family will be to great for Trump to resist.
...and one that a majority of Democratic senators voted to confirm less than an year ago
The more I think about this, that fact about Lagoa also helps to "take the wind out of the sails," for some arguments to justify future "Court packing." Already, claims are being made that if Trump nominates, and the Senate confirms an "extremist" and "conservative activist," that will justify packing the Court.
Trump, and the Republicans in the Senate can point to the fact that so many Democrats supported Lagoa in November 2019, that they couldn't realistically be believed by saying they now find her to be an "extremist" or "conservative activist."
Then again, Republicans and Democrats both have shown that flip flopping on such issues is something both sides will often do. Compare opinions about filling the vacancy in 2016, to comments now, by people of both parties, and there are plenty of blatant contradictions.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
I stated Lagoa last fri night to some work buddies so I will stick to it. I fully recognize that ACB is being mentioned more and more as the front runner.
As per the CV extracts listed above without comment, clarification or point(s) to apparently be made, I would note Lagoa has actually practiced law and been a judge longer than any other candidate.
This is in stark contrast to the law clerking/academic pursuits of the other candidates.
I concur with those who have said she was approved 18-4 out of committee and 80-15 from the full senate with significant bi-partisan support less than a year ago such that it will be harder to oppose her relative to ACB.
I think it will be Barrett. I don’t think Trump’s actual goal is to get someone on the court before the election. I think his goal will be to get more votes in the election. He’ll get more votes by having the democrats attack a nominee for her religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A dark horse candidate emerges, Tedina Cruzette.
In seriousness, ACB seems like the best of the list for originalist 2A views, so that's good enough for me.
Reply With Quote