Read the link. I think Robert Barnes is a smart guy and he is dedicated to a hard originalist reading of the Constitution. His concerns should be our concerns.
Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.
“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.
Has there ever been a Bushie who has ever been loyal to President Trump? Lagoa is a Bushie.
Has there ever been a Pence'er who has ever been disloyal to the President? Barrett is a Pence'er.
I like this take. I am a strong no on Lagoa. She is a blank slate Bushie. Bad idea.
Also, on pure politics........ The President has Florida sewn up. He doesn't need Lagoa.
Barrett is a Catholic. And, Democrats can't resist smearing her Catholic beliefs. It is the only thing they have on her.
Here in PA and also in WI the Catholic vote is huge. In MN and MI it is big enough to swing the election by 2-3 points.
Barrett is political dynamite.
If it is Barrett.... I will just LOVE WATCHING THE DEMS ATTACK HER RELIGION while making fools of themselves.....
because that is what they do.. attack Religion.
She's too old anyway. I doubt Trump would pick her on that alone.
Have you read Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Barrett concurred with Ellis who used Jacobson as guidance in this case. That should scare the hell out of you.
ELI5?
Jacobson was a decision by the supreme court in 1906 (I believe) that compelled Jacobson to forcibly get a small pox vaccine. In essence, it says that the government has the right to compel a citizen to do an action if it's in the interest of the state. This is a far cry from the state compelling a citizen to not do an action in the interest of the state, like driving drunk.
This case law hasn't been used by a court as precedent for more than 70 years because of it's ominous nature. No judge was willing to reference it until Ellis came along, and Barrett concurred with Ellis.
Is there case law that indirectly overturns Jacobson? Is ACB weak on breaking stare decisis?
Not overturns it, but the recent Judge in Pennsylvania (Stickman) specifically said it wasn't appropriate when he struck down Wolf's lockdown orders.
https://twitter.com/reluctantcentr5/status/1308106989227122689
I don't believe there is case law that overturns it, otherwise, they wouldn't have used it as "guidance".
I don't know if Barrett is weak on overturning precedent, and frankly, that's not my concern with her. The fact that she consented to use dubious case law that hadn't been used by any prior judge for 70+ years, case law that gives the government incredible powers over our lives, indicates that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to both that I will oppose her.
You're not changing my mind. You haven't made the case that she didnt selectively punish Republicans while letting Democrats do whatever they want. And arming felons (aka Democrats) is not even close to actual 2a defense. It could easily be construed as continuing to help Democrats victimize the country. Has she defended law abiding Republicans' rights to own firearms?
I started reading the documents last night, and this is exactly what it looked like to me. A totally half-assed lawsuit with general accusations and no facts to support their argument.
Lies.
https://twitter.com/KevinDaleyDC/status/1308434278552932353
Look up the others on the list of Nominees, you might find one you like better.
yeah I've been turned into a hard no on ACB
Lagoa all the way ACB is a female Roberts
Rushing!
She tacitly supports the decision in Jacobson v Massachusetts. That's fucking scary.
While I agree she may not be ideal.. We are in a bit of a time crunch though.. We WILL need a stacked SCOTUS come Nov 3rd
Why elect another woman at all?
I would just like to remind everyone that anyone Trump picks, is going to be a million percent better than who she is replacing.
RBG was a cancer on the entire court system. At no point in her entire career did she waver from her ideological zeal, no law could be written that she wouldn't contort her understanding of to make it fit her preconceived outcome.
She is quite possibly the worst jurist who ever sat on the Supreme Court. We're in for a massive upgrade, no matter what.
These posts are so obvious in trying to sow division, it’s pitiful.
That's the sense I'm getting. I know people are cautious because they dont want another "reliable" judge like Roberts who keeps swinging left, but this seems like a concern campaign to split conservatives. It's all pretty sudden and convenient.
It's important to probe. I personally don't want another Gorsuch style pick. It's fine to debate about who's the best possible candidate.
I like Barnes' commentary, and he is very often spot on.
In this situation, he makes valid points about ACB.
She has a track record of being totally pro establishment in her decisions thus far. She literally back the government position in nearly every case.
I think Trump is taking this in consideration because she would absolutely, positively be in his corner in the coming attacks on him by future courts and agencies as he leaves office. So there is that part of the equation.
Also, she is a bit younger, so we would get probably 5ish more years of service from her.
HOWEVER, we (and Trump, I hope) need to consider the political timing. Lagoa essentially hands us FL on a silver platter in the election because of the cuban support, and also HELPS us in several close Senate seat battles, whereas ACB gives us no such bump electorally, and in fact will motivate the Dem and independent base to vote Biden out of irrational (and probably misplaced) fears of immediate Roe V Wade overturn from ACB because her position on that is well known.
Sealing up FL basically ensures the election, and the bump to Senate seats is welcome too.
My opinion is the same as Barnes, its better for us if he chooses Lagoa at this time. I like ACB and think Barnes is a bit harsh on her, I think she will be a great MAGA judge, but she has time to still be put up for that in the next 4 years, and Trump should get at least one more pick, possibly 2.
Tactically speaking, Barbara is the better choice right now IMO.
Sexist as it may be, I don't trust any woman to take the seat.
She's also been endorsed by swamp monster Senator Mike Lee. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mike-lee-wants-amy-coney-barrett-scotus
Be sure and notify President Trump of your opinion and theory! He needs critical information like this!
What about the Protestant Female.
Two words; FISA and 4th Amendment. If you can live with that - she'll do.
The President needs to pick a strong constitutionalist male for the supreme court.
I'm with you. Next term - he will have two more chances.
I read the Barnes twitter thread about Barrett, and feel that his assessment was wrong. He outlined one case as follows:
A woman had a daughter with a guy who would occasionally stay with her at her house. He didn’t live there. One night the guy shows up and the adults get in an argument where the guy beats the woman with a golf club. She leaves, and calls 911. Cops arrive, the guy is still in the house, the woman says she is afraid for her daughter, who is still inside. The cops knock three times (the guy inside admitted to hearing it and knowing who it was) and there was no answer. The cops break down the door and arrest the guy. The guy sued the cops for violating his 4th amendment rights. Barrett rules the guy is full of shit, and Barnes excoriates her for it. Sounds to me like she did the right thing.
The headline of this post is also misleading.
Barrett was to rule on whether a political party should be given the same exemptions for gatherings as churches during the China virus pandemic - she said no. People here are pissed because
It was the GOP who said they should get equal exemptions, and
She didn’t rule the lockdown unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the lockdown was not the argument of the case, so ruling on it was outside the realm of her control.
Don’t just accept click bait headlines as truth - dig a bit deeper.
NO JOY
F A L S E
A
L
S
E