Barrett is not the SCJ we want. Her rulings and track record, including recent things like lockdown, prove that she is not the right choice. Lagoa has a long and much better record, by several orders.
(source) Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.
Indeed, with flimsy reasoning no less.
Constitutional Lawyer Robert Barnes, from the earlier linked discussion, explains her further,
She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power. That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer.
There is more from him about the terrible rulings she's made in the linked article here.
Thanks for the sources either ACB or Lagoa would be fine when compared to RBG.
both are Catholic but I lean towards Lagoa. Firstly Trump must be reelected and retain the Senate.
It could be Barrett. It could be Lagoa. It could be someone else. How many times have we seen President Trump misdirect the media about his choices then surprise everyone with his pick? Like when he had Mittens to dinner. The truth is we won't know until we know.
I would love that. But I do think it will be a woman. Gonna be interesting to see what lies they slime and slander her with since it probably won't be gang rape. Probably.
I haven't seen any solid argument against Barrett and the Left froths at the mouth at the sound of her name. The more I read about Lagoa, the more I like her as well.
It seems to me that both are solid picks. And no, I don't see adoption of Haitian children following a catastrophic natural disaster as any blemish on her character. On the contrary, it's an example of Christian charity that has been practiced by Christians for a very long time.
As I recall ACB wrote that she would abstain from ruling on any issue the Pope had taken a stance on. That could prove to be worse than leaving the seat vacant.
Yes, that Pope that is pushing for cultural Marxism.
The Pope that commands governments to take taxpayers' money to maintain millions of invaders in hotels, while he gives nothing of the immense wealth of the Catholic church.
In all fairness most of the "immense wealth" of the Catholic Church is not under the pope's control. Local dioceses pretty much control their own funds.
Originalism takes the meaning of all the available documents into account, sometimes referencing other works to determine intention and meaning. Textualism limits itself to purely the law as written, sometimes with a modern interpretation. Frex, a Textualist could argue that the 2A refers only to members of a militia that is bound by law to oversight by the government, because the law clearly reads "the militia" and "well regulated". An Originalist would look at outside works of the era to determine what the Founders intent was.
Both are valid, because the law IS what is on paper that was actually passed by Congress, not any one members interpretation or goals. But for such an old doc it's also extremely important to see the intent of those laws through the lens of that era.
Not Barrett she will stab us in the back on immigration and abortion hiding behind her Catholic faith.
Which one adopted Hatian children?
Barrett.
That thing alone must disqualify her.
Not true at all. There are multiple very valid criticisms. (For those who want a deeper dive on it, check out this Viva-Barnes discussion of the RGB seat.)
Barrett is not the SCJ we want. Her rulings and track record, including recent things like lockdown, prove that she is not the right choice. Lagoa has a long and much better record, by several orders.
I’ve heard that she had ruled in favor of the governors lockdown policies. Any truth to this?
Indeed, with flimsy reasoning no less.
Constitutional Lawyer Robert Barnes, from the earlier linked discussion, explains her further,
There is more from him about the terrible rulings she's made in the linked article here.
Thanks for the sources either ACB or Lagoa would be fine when compared to RBG. both are Catholic but I lean towards Lagoa. Firstly Trump must be reelected and retain the Senate.
She also supports these lockdowns.
Is it true Barrett ruled in support of lockdown orders?
Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto&feature=youtu.be&t=685
It could be Barrett. It could be Lagoa. It could be someone else. How many times have we seen President Trump misdirect the media about his choices then surprise everyone with his pick? Like when he had Mittens to dinner. The truth is we won't know until we know.
Ted Cruz!
I was surprised to learn our favorite serial killer had argued in front of the supreme court 3 times including in front of RBG.
He did a great interview after she died talking about her.
dude knows how to cover his tracks legally. /s
he'll probably be our next best pick for POTUS.
he would be excellent for the SC but we need his senate seat.
in the next term.
His seat is not up for reelection until 2024.
if he was appointed it would be a special election.
I would love that. But I do think it will be a woman. Gonna be interesting to see what lies they slime and slander her with since it probably won't be gang rape. Probably.
Cruz comes out as a trans woman.
He actually retweeted that meme this morning. We have the best shitposters. 😁
I'd like to see some sources on Lagoa positions.
Same. All I've seen is people cheerleading on here. Its suspicious
Try this source. Admittedly it Barnes opinion but he is fairly based This link starts at 11:35 regarding ACB but he talks about Lagoa starting about (21:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto&feature=youtu.be&t=685
I haven't seen any solid argument against Barrett and the Left froths at the mouth at the sound of her name. The more I read about Lagoa, the more I like her as well.
It seems to me that both are solid picks. And no, I don't see adoption of Haitian children following a catastrophic natural disaster as any blemish on her character. On the contrary, it's an example of Christian charity that has been practiced by Christians for a very long time.
As I recall ACB wrote that she would abstain from ruling on any issue the Pope had taken a stance on. That could prove to be worse than leaving the seat vacant.
The same Christian charity that wants to take millions of "refugees" from Africa.
There's a difference between individual charity and forcing others to pay for importing poor people.
Tell that to the Pope.
You mean the same Pope that Amy Coney Barrett will always side with?
Yes, that Pope that is pushing for cultural Marxism.
The Pope that commands governments to take taxpayers' money to maintain millions of invaders in hotels, while he gives nothing of the immense wealth of the Catholic church.
In all fairness most of the "immense wealth" of the Catholic Church is not under the pope's control. Local dioceses pretty much control their own funds.
Solid arguments: she supported the recent lockdowns.
To Clarify ACB supported the lock downs. She will bend a kee to the government most of the time. Try rhis link from Viva Frei and Barnes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto&feature=youtu.be&t=685
If they're both good picks, but one is easier to confirm, then pick the one that's easier to confirm.
Listen Republicans always select the wrong justices, say no to crazy (ACB) she will fuck us
Lagoa all the way dont fall for the ACB trap!
I am going to leave it to Geotus and the Federalist and Hertage Societies.
thats where he gets his lists.
I agree. ACB is a corporatist that comes from old southern money. Listen to Barnes on ACB. Starts at 11;35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto&feature=youtu.be&t=685
I'm team Lagoa.
Barrett is the pick. My sources are solid.
this might change your mind. Starts at 11:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto&feature=youtu.be&t=685
Originalism and Textualism are opposite interpretations, which is she really?
But they are both good.
Demonrats judges don't do either of them. They follow the method of "inventing things that don't exist so you can legislate from the bench".
Could you give me a quick explanation of the difference.
Originalism takes the meaning of all the available documents into account, sometimes referencing other works to determine intention and meaning. Textualism limits itself to purely the law as written, sometimes with a modern interpretation. Frex, a Textualist could argue that the 2A refers only to members of a militia that is bound by law to oversight by the government, because the law clearly reads "the militia" and "well regulated". An Originalist would look at outside works of the era to determine what the Founders intent was.
Both are valid, because the law IS what is on paper that was actually passed by Congress, not any one members interpretation or goals. But for such an old doc it's also extremely important to see the intent of those laws through the lens of that era.
Thanks for the information.