"I don't like Amy Coney Barrett!" No shit. Many of us don't. But we dont have the luxury of time on our side to push another Clarence Thomas in. We have roughly 45 days to election on an election that will surely go to the Supreme Court. We don't have time for the 15 women said nominee will have been accused of raping. We all know the Dems will push for EVERY victim to come before Congress and tell their story.
We have 53 Republicans. We can afford 3 NO votes with a Pence tiebreaker. 3 of the Republicans are Romney, Murkowski, and Collins which are high probability chances of No votes. How many other RINO senators could be swayed to virtue signal for a woke mob protesting in their office for the 5 women said nominee gang banged back in 8th grade after he tied them up and they kept it a total secret the last 40 years?
We dont have the luxury of time to lose a nominee after wasting weeks trying to get them confirmed. We have time for ONE nominee who the Democrats cant use their conventional playbook of "He raped 30 women" before prodding them out of nowhere. Use your fucking heads to anyone who keeps complaining they want thing their way.
We need someone in place before election and we get one shot. So instead of bitching about who President Trump brings, which smart money is saying Amy Coney Barrett, support our President and the shitstorm he has to navigate to get this last confirmation.
KAG 2020
She's not the only woman on President Trump's list of Supreme Court candidates.
She would be the best pick, but I think Trump will go with Barbara Lagoa for four reasons:
These are all garbage reasons.
When will we, then? We had ample time when Scalia's and Kennedy's seats were vacated, and yet, we got two justices more liberal than Alito.
Well it sure as hell isnt when we only have 45 days to get one in.
I trust President Trump. But I am sick of the presumption that it should be a woman.
Unless?
I've seen comments in numerous posts, but here is one of my posts and you can see some of the comments.
https://thedonald.win/p/HXfI9A2S/democrats-are-fucked/c/
She has some unfortunate positions: she co-wrote a treatise a decade ago where she stated that a Catholic judge could not sentence someone to the death penalty (even though at the time, as now, despite Francis the Talking Pope's opinion, the death penalty is still licit in the Catholic Church), on a broader point in the same work she argued that a Catholic judge must recuse themselves in any case where the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Constitution of the United States conflict, and most recently she ruled that churches must remain closed due to COVID-19 but BLM protests are okay.
I realize I addressed your first point second, instead of your second point... this is getting needlessly complicated. As for the death penalty, I largely agree with you, that the death penalty should be reserved for those whose continued existence is a threat to society, but what one must take into consideration is that there are those who think that the death penalty should never be handed down and that life imprisonment is immoral as well (Francis the Talking Pope is in that camp). Giving those factors I believe that if you are on a jury, you have to weigh in the balances the very real possibility that the person you are sitting in judgement of will at some point be released, perhaps despite your judgement, perhaps decades hence. If the crime deserves death (and there are many crimes which do), best to try and see justice done.
To address your last point first: the Illinois governor wrote a COVID-19 lockdown order that exempted religious organizations from gathering limits, but the IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health) issued "guidelines" that did not, limiting religious congregations to less than 100 people or 25% attendance capacity with social distancing, whichever was lower. The Illinois Republican Party sued, on the grounds that the BLM protests were allowed, with the Governor even participated in one protest. The 7th Circuit court ruled, with Amy Barrett in the majority, that "favoritism" was not proved, and the fact that BLM riots occurred did not mean the governor did not have the authority to regulate the freedom of religion.
https://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/community-guidance/places-worship-guidance
To address your second point second, the treatise was published in 1998. I will concede that was 22 years ago, when Amy was 26 years old. But "young"? By the time I was 26, I was married with two children. I have not seen where she publicly repudiated her previous beliefs, and, as you did previously, I ask for proof.