U.S. Supreme Court nominations

Barrett is actually a really bad pick. I'll have to dig up the info but I saw that she always sides with big business against employees, with the police in 4th amendment violations, etc, and has signalled she will side with canon law, which could potentially become full communist (particularly in regards to immigration) under Pope Francis.
Traditionally America was a Protestant nation that was skeptical of Roman Catholics ascending to power. The perception was that the Catholic's ultimate loyalty was to Rome, and not to America. There was never a Catholic president up until John F. Kennedy.

In my view, if we're supposed to celebrate "diversity" and people from "diverse backgrounds" and have underrepresented groups on the Supreme Court, then we should have a Baptist from the Deep South be placed on the Supreme Court. I can't think of a Baptist from the Deep South who has served on the Supreme Court in recent decades. Many of the justices have been Catholics and Jews from the North.
 

Hypno

Crow
Hugo Black was from a Baptist from the Deep South and even a KKK member. He died in 1971. Leaving aside his KKK membership, his jurisprudence is impressive and remarkable for its consistency, by which I mean he was probably the best example of a justice who applied the law rather than politics in reaching his decisions.

With RBG gone, the Court is down to 3 Jews, 5 Catholics if you count Sotomayer, and a Protestant (Episcopalian).
 

Hypno

Crow
The democrats are going to just stack the court as soon as they gain the WH.
Democrats are going to have to wait a long time to turn the Supreme Court simply because of the ages of the Justices.

Thomas 72
Alito 70
Roberts 65
Kavanaugh 55
Gorsuch 53
Barrett 48.

Breyer 82
Sotomayer 66
Kagan 60

If you assume Trump wins a second term, that will be at best 4 years from now.

During those 4 years, Thomas will likely retire because he has served a long time and wants to, and Breyer and Sotomayer likely will retire due to health and age. Trump is no fool and will appoint young, healthy justices to replace them.

Kagan is young and could remain there for the democrats.

But lets assume for kicks that the Democrats win the White House in 2024. When is their next appointment?

4 year from now the Court will probably look like this:


Alito 74
Roberts 69
Kavanaugh 59
Gorsuch 57
Barrett 52.
Trump's Thomas replacement xx
Trump's Breyer replacement xx
Trump's Sotomayer replacement xx

Kagan 64

They might get a chance to replace Alito or Roberts during a 2024-2028 White House term. Alito, having seen RBG's mistake, could prevent that by retiring in the 3rd year of Trump's second term at age 73, allowing Trump to appoint a younger replacement.

There is also Qanon speculation that Roberts will be replaced soon.

So there is a very realistic chance that the Court will be conservative, or at least not liberal, for a very long time.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Democrats are going to have to wait a long time to turn the Supreme Court simply because of the ages of the Justices.

Thomas 72
Alito 70
Roberts 65
Kavanaugh 55
Gorsuch 53
Barrett 48.

Breyer 82
Sotomayer 66
Kagan 60

If you assume Trump wins a second term, that will be at best 4 years from now.

During those 4 years, Thomas will likely retire because he has served a long time and wants to, and Breyer and Sotomayer likely will retire due to health and age. Trump is no fool and will appoint young, healthy justices to replace them.

Kagan is young and could remain there for the democrats.

But lets assume for kicks that the Democrats win the White House in 2024. When is their next appointment?

4 year from now the Court will probably look like this:


Alito 74
Roberts 69
Kavanaugh 59
Gorsuch 57
Barrett 52.
Trump's Thomas replacement xx
Trump's Breyer replacement xx
Trump's Sotomayer replacement xx

Kagan 64

They might get a chance to replace Alito or Roberts during a 2024-2028 White House term. Alito, having seen RBG's mistake, could prevent that by retiring in the 3rd year of Trump's second term at age 73, allowing Trump to appoint a younger replacement.

There is also Qanon speculation that Roberts will be replaced soon.

So there is a very realistic chance that the Court will be conservative, or at least not liberal, for a very long time.
Stack the court means increasing the number of judges like FDR tried to do, and immediately appointing more liberals. The size of the SCOTUS is at the discretion of congress, and is not fixed at nine by the constitution. Numerous leading Dems have already called for doing this.

The Republicans should preemptively stack the court in the next term, and fill it with more strict constructionists. That way when the Dems finally do get control and stack it with liberals, they'll have to expand it to 30 justices or so. Once this happens, a SCOTUS retirement will be no big deal. Retirements will be frequent, and each one will only swing the court by a small amount.
 
Last edited:

Hypno

Crow
Posted on Free Republic:

Leftist/Democrats currently are in an absolute panic over the death, and very probable replacement by a Republican president, of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are now promoting the unsubstantiated and wholly strange ideology that a justice - no, just THIS justice - should be replaced:
- with a woman
- with a person of similar judicial philosophy
- by a Democratic President, purportedly the next president

Where did ANY of these bizarre demands have their genesis?

As far as the last demand, it has been emphasized in several rational recent public discussions how that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a president’s term has been the overwhelming RULE, not the exception. There is nothing untoward about the president fulfilling his constitutional duty, no matter where it occurs in his administration. This has even occurred as recently as the Obama administration, when he nominated a replacement justice well less than a year from the end of his term.

As far as the replacement justice being a cookie-cutter judicial mind of the predecessor, I’d like to ask how and why this is now some kind of hard-and-fast rule. A simple question that drops a nuclear bomb on that insistence is simply: Whom did Justice Ginsburg replace? What was the judicial philosophy of the previous Justice? What was the sex?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated in 1993 by President Bill Clinton to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Byron White, a long-serving justice nominated by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. In case it isn’t obvious, Byron White was a man, a white man to be exact. A former highly recognized football player, he played pro football for the Detroit Lions until his career was cut short with the advent of World War II, when he entered the Navy to serve. After the war, he opted to use the money he earned in pro football to attend law school, where he excelled as a law student at Yale, graduating magna cum laude and first in his class. A jock with a brain is virtually a Renaissance man.

White was decidedly conservative in his judicial philosophy. Along with William Rehnquist, White was one of the only two dissenters in the infamous Roe v. Wade case, characterizing the majority opinion as “an exercise in raw judicial power, and “interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life.” While being a champion of the judicial philosophy of stare decisis White nevertheless never stopped opposing abortion and voted several times in cases to limit abortion.

White also wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law against a substantive due process attack.

The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.... There should be, therefore, great resistance to ... redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

Bowers
was overruled over 15 years later by the pernicious Lawrence v. Texas, a decision joined by Justice Ginsburg. So much for stare decisis.

On many other social and personal freedom issues, White took a middle approach, but never lost sight of the ultimate consideration of personal freedom. He voted to strike down state contraception bans in Griswold v. Connecticut, though he refused to join in the majority opinion of “right of privacy” foundations for the decision. White supported the death penalty as long as the penalty was applied proportional to the crime.

It’s not hard to observe that Justice White was hardly of the same legal mind as Ginsburg. However, Ginsburg sailed through judicial confirmation hearings with a final vote of 96 to 3 a modest month-and-a half after nomination.

So, a Jew for a Christian (Episcopalian.) A woman for a man. A rabid abortion advocate for an abortion opponent. An ivory-tower academic elite for a Bronze Star-awarded war hero. A homosexual-“rights” Nazi for a homosexual acts opponent. A stare decisis hater for a stare decisis respecter.

It doesn’t get any starker than this. I’d say it’s time, in the interest of “equal time,” to switch back to a true conservative, which we largely see in Amy Coney Barrett.

xxx

I would add that the claptrap about a woman should be able to make decisions about her own body is contradicted by science. The genetica makeup of a fetus is different from the woman's, so its not her own body; at most, its half her own body but really its zero her own body.
 
The reaction from Entertainment, Inc. to Barrett being nominated is predictable:





Amy is like a hybrid of Aunt Lydia and a Stepford wife,” Grammy-winning singer Diane Warren tweeted, referring to the Aunt Lydia villain in The Handmaid’s Tale.
These bozos are pathetically self-referential.

Their knowledge of culture is so limited they can only make sense of momentously historic events in terms of schlocky mass entertainment. Its the same mindset that conceives of Donald Trump as Voldemort.

I wonder if Coney, the arch Catholic, realizes that her nomination is only another card that the Psycho turns over to destroy the Constitution.
— HABFoundation (@ABFalecbaldwin)
They're also mostly stupid and like trained monkeys they're reflexively anti-Christian. I'm sure this makes some kind of sense in Baldwin's fevered imagination but to normal people its incoherent and makes him sound like a confused schizophrenic.

Amy, belongs 2 a cult that served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, "The Handmaid's Tale" called 'People's Praise' which teaches that men are the head of the household, is replacing a woman who was against everything this indoctrinated stepford judge stands 4.

Actress Kristen Johnston said that women are “f****d,” referring to Barrett’s association with the Catholic community known as People of Praise.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...wife-we-are-so-fked-rbg-turning-in-her-grave/

They're also paranoid.

The galling thing about these people is their lack of shame and civility. I don't watch TV or movies and I don't have a streaming service so at least my money is not going their way, but unfortunately many people do, and so their influence is there whether we like it or not. Its almost like these people suffer from a distinct mental illness brought on by being famous and has certain specific traits--stupidity, hatred of Christianity, paranoia, shamelessness, and being excessively self-referential.
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Woodpecker
Trump selecting a feminine Scalia law clerk Legal Lioness for SCOTUS has UberLibtard John Oliver going RREEEEE over ACB...


I particularly liked the long shadow of DJT.
Tiny arms. Dysgenic face. Eyebrows assuming control of his consciousness. Tractor nose. Sterile, gray room. Why do we have an ungrateful British peasant lecturing us on how to be American? Quite literally he should be deported. Makes me feel a little better about Catholic judge mom lady watching a creature like John Oliver sperg about her.
 

Deepdiver

Crow
Gold Member
Tiny arms. Dysgenic face. Eyebrows assuming control of his consciousness. Tractor nose. Sterile, gray room. Why do we have an ungrateful British peasant lecturing us on how to be American? Quite literally he should be deported. Makes me feel a little better about Catholic judge mom lady watching a creature like John Oliver sperg about her.
I only disagree on deporting him because his SpergReeeeathon on behalf of AOC Bernie Bidenettes has put a smile on my face that only got larger watching ACB's Whitehouse rose garden affirmation that she proudly stands on the legal shoulders of her conservative stalwart Scalia mentor and then this morning on George Snarksatallofus I see this spectacular one minute video of Biden in a long teleprompter brain freeze that seemed to be a news report on GMA only to finish by DJT saying I AM Donald Trump and I APPROVE this message.

With all the BLM Ballers in full Cuck mode the main event Beijing Biden vs Patriot Trump Tuesday evening is the height of this BLM sports ball season. Fade to Tony the Tiger voice over it's gonna be GREAT!
 
Last edited:

October 12? This gives the Democrats enough time to dig into ACB's past to create a narrative and/or a false story.



Edit.


Elie Mystal is still alive? He was a morbidly obese, otherwise unemployed blogger 10+ years ago. Hadn't heard of him since I stopped reading Above the Law. I guess some things never change.
 
Barrett is unappealing but she'll serve Trump's short-term political interests. It will get the Dems to meltdown and add anti-Christian venom to their anti-white rhetoric and antagonize even more voters. The fact that Barrett - like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch - is probably at best moderate left doesn't make any difference to them.
 

ball dont lie

Kingfisher
Gold Member
No I'm very serious. The left isn't in the business of appointing fair people, they appoint legislators to the bench. If you can think we can win this game when our players pass the ball to everyone on the field fairly, while they only pass to their own team, well I don't know what to say.

The left is literally evil. They're killing babies, committing “legal” genocide, invading countries, teaching our kids to be gay and to invert their sex organs. This isn't the America of the 1950s.

This is too true and usually lost. Conservatives are mostly out for themselves, making sure they get their pay out from oil &gas, defense, big business, etc when they retire. Liberals are a massive, well oiled machine from the lowest to highest levels. They are an army. Look at how powerful Hillary and Obama are. The web of power they have over every part of American society is incredible. They literally are trying to make your kids gay or trans, and are winning.

The right has snakes and back stabbers everywhere. Who would backstab Hillary or Nancy Pelosi on the Left? Romney had to threatened to vote for a conservative Supreme Court pick.

The Right is filled with a bunch of loser, scared guys waiting for pay outs. The Left are crusaders, true believers that would kill you, your family, your ideals for any small increase in power.
 

estraudi

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Barrett is unappealing but she'll serve Trump's short-term political interests. It will get the Dems to meltdown and add anti-Christian venom to their anti-white rhetoric and antagonize even more voters. The fact that Barrett - like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch - is probably at best moderate left doesn't make any difference to them.
I don't think ACB being nominated to the court will be used an an ephemeral solution for Trump.
The appointment comes with it a lifetime obligation.

Not ACB.jpg
 

Sam Malone

Ostrich
Gold Member
I don't think ACB being nominated to the court will be used an an ephemeral solution for Trump.
The appointment comes with it a lifetime obligation.
I think it's more that ACB doesn't really change the makeup of the SC as far as her gender.

There was potential for Democrats and fence sitters to come out on 11/3 because Orange Man replaced RGB with a man. Putting in Barrett (woman for woman) won't peg the meter in that regard. It takes away an arrow in the Dem quiver in the sense that they won't be able focus on gender at the ACB hearings.

She may not be the best choice overall, but Trump believes she was/is the best choice NOW. Get her in and get her confirmed.
 

estraudi

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I think it's more that ACB doesn't really change the makeup of the SC as far as her gender.

There was potential for Democrats and fence sitters to come out on 11/3 because Orange Man replaced RGB with a man. Putting in Barrett (woman for woman) won't peg the meter in that regard. It takes away an arrow in the Dem quiver in the sense that they won't be able focus on gender at the ACB hearings.

She may not be the best choice overall, but Trump believes she was/is the best choice NOW. Get her in and get her confirmed.
Oh I see what you mean. I wish the nomination were a man too but we are where we are in this clown world.
3 picks so far and if he gets more they will most likely be male replacements.
 

R.G.Camara

Woodpecker
Shouldn't be a woman, as it violates natural law.

That said, if Roe v. Wade is reversed, many people will want it done by a woman, simply for the symbolism. Guaranteed Barrett will take be given the lead opinion on most abortion cases, whether in the majority or in the minority. Not one of the males on the S.C. is brave enough to want to be the writer, except perhaps Clarence Thomas, who by this point is at the Clint-Eastwood-Get-off-my-lawn-you-dirty-hippie stage of curmudgeon.
 
Top