Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

A Dem fight over Amy Barrett’s Catholicism may be just what Trump wants

A Dem fight over Amy Barrett’s Catholicism may be just what Trump wants

The more Dems attack her, the more likely she is to be the nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5aj21ASM84

Neil Gorsuch was an incredibly safe pick for Trump. Despite the plaintive wails of Democrats about a “stolen” seat, they didn’t have much with which to go after Gorsuch on the merits.

Nonetheless Democrats filibustered Gorsuch, forcing Republican’s to play the nuclear option for a SCOTUS nominee (as Democrats did in 2013 for all lower courts and made clear they would do if Hillary won and they regained the Senate).

Having forced the nuclear option for Gorsuch, Democrats made it easier for Trump to pick a more controversial nominee next time. It was a strategic error for Democrats, much as their exercising the nuclear option for all lower courts in 2013 came back to bite them.

We are now at that next time, with Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring. What has changed is that Republicans have an even thinner margin in the Senate after losing the Alabama seat.

Most of the reporting on the “short list” includes the same names — Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amul Thapar. The Daily Caller reports that Barrett and Kavanaugh are the two leading contenders.

Any of them would be fine.

My sense is that Kavanaugh is the “safest” pick, in the sense of a Gorsuch-like relatively non-controversial nominee. That’s important, because Trump can’t afford to lose any Republicans. There is a one-vote margin, but McCain’s health is in question. Losing Susan Collins (the most likely defector) would not be fatal to a nomination assuming McCain can vote (and Pence breaks a tie), but that’s risky.

While Kavanaugh may be the safest choice, he may not be the best choice. Aaron Blake at WaPo explains why an Amy Barrett nomination would make sense to Trump:

Amy Coney Barrett is thought to be one of the leading contenders and is almost surely one of the two women Trump has now said is on his shortlist ahead of the announcement of the pick July 9. She’s the one female candidate who was on pretty much everybody’s shortlist, in fact.

And she checks a lot of boxes. Like his previous pick, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, she’s young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings. Unlike Gorsuch, of course, she’s a woman — a fact that could help mitigate the onslaught of questions about whether she would help overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett is also from Indiana, which could apply pressure on its vulnerable Democratic senator, Joe Donnelly, to vote for her.

As far as reinventing the court for decades to come, she’s everything Trump’s base could want. But she also gives something Trump something less tangible: The opportunity to stoke a culture war.

Culture war? That would be liberal Democrats’ war against Barrett’s Catholicism. We covered that when she was nominated by Trump for the Court of Appeals, Some worry about anti-Catholic bigotry against 7th Cir. nominee Amy Barrett.

The questioning of Barrett from Democrat Senators smacked of a religious litmus test (meaning, Democrats opposed a Catholic nominee who actually practiced Catholicism).

We noted in that post that NY Times article amplifying the anti-Catholic attitude of the Democrats, Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group:

One of President Trump’s judicial nominees became something of a hero to religious conservatives after she was grilled at a Senate hearing this month over whether her Roman Catholic faith would influence her decisions on the bench….

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members’ lives.

Now that Barrett is on the short list to replace Justice Kennedy, the attacks on her Catholicism are coming fast and furious, including from Twitter nutter and Democrat Senate candidate Richard Painter:

This could be the fight Trump wants.

This is how the Judicial Action Network played the issue for the appeals court nomination:

Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review notes that Dems will not be able to control themselves over a Barrett nomination:

… her appointment, in particular, has several political advantages. Millions of Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump because they felt it was necessary to protect the liberty to practice their faith. The fight over Barrett’s confirmation would almost certainly build trust between President Trump and social conservatives. It would energize Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again.

And sure enough, Chuck Schumer is attacking Barrett:

The ramping up of attacks on Barrett may in fact seal her destiny to be the nominee:

As Rush says, they will always tell us who they fear.

The question is, however, not what Chuck Schumer thinks, but what Susan Collins and a couple of other weak Republicans think. Will Trump take the risk of a Republican defection over Barrett? It’s not all one-sided, though. If the Barrett nomination is portrayed in the media as a fight over Catholicism, will vulnerable Democrat Senators up for reelection in November vote against Barrett?

The “rational” me says someone in Trump’s position would take the safe pick, Kavanaugh. Barring a skeleton in the closet, he’ll be confirmed before the First Monday in October.

Which means WELCOME MS. JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Left hates women. They might hate women on the left less than they hate women on the right, but they still hate them. They have no respect for them. Personally, I think it’s pretty blatant, but a lot of women can’t see it. An all out attack on Judge Barrett would put the spotlight on it.

    bear in reply to elliesmom. | July 2, 2018 at 7:54 pm

    elliesmom, you are quite correct. In addition, JFK was a catholic, although it didn’t curb his philandering or the media coverup.

    Are the lefties now disavowing their deification of JFK? They beclown themselves with every faux outrage.

    An accomplished mother with a large family….how unfeminist of her! The left chokes on their own transparent absurdities.

    Halcyon Daze in reply to elliesmom. | July 3, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    The Left Hates. Period. Venal, loathing hatred.

The court has been all Catholics and Jews since Stevens retired. When are we going to get Christian representation on the court?

    Colonel Travis in reply to rotten. | July 2, 2018 at 7:43 pm

    Catholics are not Christian?
    Learned something new today.

    Anonamom in reply to rotten. | July 2, 2018 at 7:43 pm

    Last time I checked, Catholics ARE Christians. Did you mean to say “Protestant?”

    fscarn in reply to rotten. | July 2, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    Gorsuch’s there.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to rotten. | July 2, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    Whether Catholic, Orthodox, and all Protestant denominations that I am aware use the same basic sign, water, and the same basic: (Name of person being baptized) is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is the Christian rite of baptism.
    They are Christian. There is no mention of being baptized a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or any of the other 200+ divisions of Christendom.

    Now, the newly baptized is received into a congregation or parish. However, if later on, a persons desires to make a change there may be instruction involved but there is no basis for re-baptizing. Indeed, one may even renounce the faith, but there is nothing that I’m aware that can un-baptize a person. So, once a Christian always a Christian, even if one changes flavors.

      alaskabob in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | July 2, 2018 at 11:56 pm

      I would bet to differ a little. For some Protestants, baptism is a personal public affirmation of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior and done by the person, not for the person. As such infant baptism means nothing.

      Are three part gods superior to one part gods? Or is it the other way around?

      To be a Christian you have to subscribe to Roman theology.

      You can’t run an Empire without a proper State religion.

      Immolate in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | July 3, 2018 at 11:37 am

      There are no “flavors”; just one Church of whom Jesus Christ is the leader. Everything else is just man adding his opinions. To the extent that those opinions are in conflict with the Bible, or add to/take away from the Bible, they are in error.

      For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

      Baptism is identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A baby cannot consciously decide to be a Christian. Why not just do what John did to Jesus (among countless others) and dispense with non-Biblical tradition?

    Milhouse in reply to rotten. | July 3, 2018 at 2:36 am

    You’re behind the times. Whether you consider Catholics to be Christians is up to you, but Gorsuch is Protestant.

    Milwaukee in reply to rotten. | July 3, 2018 at 12:28 pm

    PROTESTant is a word to describe people who protest. PROTEST-ant. The Catholics have a tradition of faith and reason, and try to figure things out. They have changed their ideas. Some things are left to personal interpretation, for example, what happens to babies who die in utero? There are ideas, but not a definitive teaching of the Church. Other things, such as the real presence of Christ in the consecrated host, are non-negotiable. (I believe that, as do all the faithful, and satanist.)

    On the other hand, Protestants protest too much. Instead of deciding an issue, or leaving it open to agree-to-disagree, they protest. My parents recalled a Methodist church split into two over this: When Christ ascended, he floated up into the sky. So when he returns, will he always be floating, or will he float back and walk? They couldn’t agree, and couldn’t agree to disagree, and so became two distinct churches. Protestant tradition is to not argue things to a conclusion. Hence, many forms of being Presbyterian in this country, or a diluting of what it means to be Christian.

      buckeyeminuteman in reply to Milwaukee. | July 5, 2018 at 12:00 pm

      The presence of Christ’s body in the host, or communion wafer, is certainly negotiable. How could a piece of bread or cracker possibly turn into Christ’s literal body and the juice or wine into his literal blood? That’s a preposterous idea espoused by Catholicism for millenia. For Protestants, communion is a representation and reminder of the body and blood.

So, I’m trying to make sure I follow the lefties’ logic here. Vote for Hillary, because she has lady parts, despite being unqualified for the position she’s trying to secure. Vote against Barretts, despite having lady parts and being incredibly qualified for the position she may be nominated for. Did I miss something?

The thing that amazes me is that she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, 46 and has popped out 7 children.

Unless there are at least two pairs of twins in that group, where did she find the time and energy.

    Immolate in reply to RodFC. | July 3, 2018 at 11:51 am

    You’d be surprised what you can accomplish if you’re not spending half your time goofing off. Come to think of it, I’d probably be surprised as well.

    Jackie in reply to RodFC. | July 8, 2018 at 9:30 am

    She has adopted 2 Haitian children. She only “popped out” 5. It’s probably much easier now for women to have large families than they did in the past. The left seems to feel that being a wife, mother and having a great career are negative traits and disqualify her from being on the Supreme Court.

Barrett only belongs on a “shortlist” of someone who’s totally missed the schism in American conservatism between the social and fiscal branches. Although there’s some overlap, the similarities are superficial; the two are philosophically very different—in some ways, even diametrically opposed. President Trump has turned out to be the best thing to happen to fiscal conservatism in decades … social conservatism, not so much.

Personally, I don’t consider the social conservatives worth much, but that’s the President’s call, not mine.

But regarding women as nominees, Trump should save the identity politics card for an emergency … when he really needs it. I don’t think he needs it now. He should make his selection for the Court on the basis of something worthwhile, and gender ain’t it.

    gibbie in reply to tom_swift. | July 2, 2018 at 7:52 pm

    “Personally, I don’t consider the social conservatives worth much, but that’s the President’s call, not mine.”

    God considers you worth his becoming a man and dying for.

    Immolate in reply to tom_swift. | July 3, 2018 at 11:56 am

    Thanks for the shout-out to the deplorables and their guns and Bibles. May you get exactly what you have coming to you. Hopefully, a change of heart.

    Mac45 in reply to tom_swift. | July 3, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    First of all, there is little conservative ideology in Congress, at all. Everyone there has two goals and only two goals. The first is to remain there. This is necessary to achieve the second goal, which is to enrich themselves.

    The people of this country have deluded themselves forever, that elected officials, and those who seek public office, actually have ideal and care, in some fashion, for their constituents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Politicians care only about themselves. many of them are classic sociopathic personalities and all are narcissists. Ignore what these people say and watch what they do. By their fruits, you will know them.

    It would be suicide for any Republican Senator to oppose any of the potential nominees to the SCOTUS. So, only those who are never going to reenter politics will be potential risks.

That she is a believing Catholic has me slightly concerned, though I’m fine with anyone on the President’s list or anyone he wants to nominate. The Catholic church has gone completely progressive and is chock-full of pc notions. That’s my concern.

Plus she just went through this process to appoint her to circuit court. I’d be ok with having her where she is for now. I don’t like the idea of sending her back to get tore up in hearings. No one can go through that and not emerge unchanged. I don’t think it is healthy, and to send her back so soon is tough.

The Donks have to stop and be as outrageous as they can with this nomination. They have to show their rabid base that they are fighting the beast. Don’t send a woman into that please.

    Having gone through this to be put on the circuit court means a much shorter confirmation battle, particularly if she got (D) votes there.

    Edward in reply to RobM. | July 2, 2018 at 10:29 pm

    Hmm, I remember the claims in 1960 that Kennedy would be taking orders from the Vatican on policy. And those claims weren’t primarily coming from Republicans so much as hard core Protestants of either party.

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.

      Petrushka in reply to Edward. | July 3, 2018 at 12:50 am

      I think democrats today might like a Catholic taking orders from thr Vatican.

      kenoshamarge in reply to Edward. | July 3, 2018 at 11:55 am

      I still have a quarter with the red nail polish on Washington to make him look like the pope. As a Catholic then I could not believe that there were still religious litmus tests in our country.

      Still a Catholic and still find it hard to believe the religious intolerance still not only alive but willing to express itself.

      If we have a “litmus” test can we have one for Feinstein’s lack of intellect and integrity? I’d be more than willing to get behind that.

      It might also be worth noting that many Catholics, like myself, are appalled by the Progressive Pope and by the Catholic Bishops and their open border bee ess. But we worship the word of God, not the word of such worldly, and sinful, people.

    Milhouse in reply to RobM. | July 3, 2018 at 2:40 am

    That she is a believing Catholic has me slightly concerned, though I’m fine with anyone on the President’s list or anyone he wants to nominate. The Catholic church has gone completely progressive and is chock-full of pc notions. That’s my concern.

    She’s a believing Catholic. Therefore you need not be concerned. Whether the Pope is Catholic is nowadays an open question, but she is regardless.

One of the interesting things here is Dick Durbin.
A large portion of the votes for him come from Chicago. The whiote population there is largely Catholic. The Hispanic community is really Catholic. These are votes which would normally go to him with little or no effort. Imagine him coming out hard on Barret’s Catholicism.

We could be seeing a new Senator from Illinois in 2020.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to RodFC. | July 2, 2018 at 9:41 pm

    Trump really knows how to plant landmines for Dems.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to RodFC. | July 2, 2018 at 9:41 pm

    Trump really knows how to plant landmines for Dems.

    Edward in reply to RodFC. | July 2, 2018 at 10:31 pm

    Turban figures, with quite a bit of justification, that the voters will forget all about his coming down on Roman Catholicism by the time 2020 rolls around.

    katasuburi in reply to RodFC. | July 2, 2018 at 10:52 pm

    LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – In a recent letter to an Illinois pro-life activist, Bishop Paprocki said that “Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his Pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the Senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”

    Durbin was pro-life earlier in his political career. In 1989, several years before he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996, Durbin changed his position. He has since supported pro-abortion laws. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America give Durbin a 100 percent rating while the National Right to Life Committee gives him a zero rating.

    Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, was honored with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” by Planned Parenthood Illinois Action at a Roe vs. Wade celebration in Chicago on January 23, 2014.

    Canon Law is the law utilized to govern the Catholic Church. Canon 915 states, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

    In Durbin’s case, the “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” apparently refers to his longstanding support for abortion laws which is contrary to Catholic teaching.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”

    The Vatican’s Declaration on Procured Abortion states: “It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.”

You’d really see the Dems as an ugly mob if you nominated an Evangelical.

DieJustAsHappy | July 2, 2018 at 7:57 pm

Concerning Kavanaugh, there’s this rather interesting article:n “How Potential SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh Wrote A Roadmap For Saving Obamacare”

https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/

Happen to hear a bit of this on Rush today.

Sounds about right. Trump will put forward a candidate who A) can be voted in and B) will make the Dem’s howl in outrage, as well as C) cause them to say stupid things that will wreck them in the upcoming election.

This one sounds like the trifecta.

I suspect the professor meant “plaintive wails” rather than “plaintiff wails.”

    William A. Jacobson in reply to nomadic100. | July 2, 2018 at 9:37 pm

    Yes, thanks for the catch. I looked it up to confirm the spelling before posting, but then got it wrong anyway.

As a woman and a Catholic, I look forward to this skirmish.

    Colonel Travis in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 2, 2018 at 10:45 pm

    I’m neither, but me too!

    franker in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 2, 2018 at 11:00 pm

    I think it very curious why nominating a woman would be playing a gender card and nominating a Catholic would be inherently problematic.

    For God’s sake – we have 3 women on the court as we speak who are absolute Political Hacks (and a couple of them probably aren’t very bright, either).

    The Catholic thing is also a canard, IMO.

    What would the Left prefer – a Muslim?

    Yeah, probably they would.

    LOL

      Milhouse in reply to franker. | July 3, 2018 at 2:46 am

      The Catholic thing is also a canard, IMO.

      What would the Left prefer – a Muslim?

      They don’t mind a Catholic, so long as her religion is only nominal, like their own (if any). What they don’t want is a believer, of any stripe. Someone so primitive as to actually think there is a Creator who literally made us and we are His to command is obviously unfit to be trusted with authority!

    kenoshamarge in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 3, 2018 at 11:59 am

    As a woman and a Catholic so do I.

    I saw the religious bigotry back in 1960 and am so sad to see that it is still around.

Nominate the best candidate for the job. Democrats will savage them regardless of gender and religion or if they eat hotdogs slathered in catsup (original hotdog sin.)

Bring it! I have yet to have someone explain to me how killing unborn babies is health care. I believe it starts the coarsening of our society and results in the low/no regard for human life.

Voice_of_Reason | July 3, 2018 at 6:10 am

but, but, i thought ONLY a woman was allowed to even have an opinion om abortion?? why are so many leftist men opining on Amy Barrett’s positions on abortion, hmmm?

where’s whoopie goldberg telling her leftists make fellow travellers to butt-out?

Catholicism is fine but this “People of Praise” group is wacky. Barrett may check off all the conservative boxes but anyone who belongs to a cultish group like “People of Praise” shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.

    herm2416 in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2018 at 8:40 am

    Anyone who calls a fine a tax shouldn’t be on the court either.

    Immolate in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2018 at 11:44 am

    Is it cultish to believe the Bible? It may not be popular, because few people seem to do it anymore, but it seems cynical to label behaving the way that you profess to believe as cultish.

    I think what you’re saying is that it’s okay to be a Christian, as long as you don’t really believe all that stuff, probably because that is where you are, a C&E Christian.

    Milhouse in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    I don’t find it at all wacky. It’s just a sort of unofficial lay religious order. a person needs guidance if he or she is to stay on a godly path, and that’s what this sounds like. Choose someone you can trust and confide in, and whenever you are in doubt about your own motives use that person for a reality check.

      With a good connection to the Head Office guidance is always available 24/7.

      If she feels she needs minders her connection is weak.

“……assuming McCain can vote (and Pence breaks a tie), but that’s risky.”
He has to be present to vote.

Just remember… even if this nomination fails, the GOP will (almost certainly) have several more Senators come January, and there’s nothing stopping the President from renominating the same candidate.

The “rational” me says someone in Trump’s position would take the safe pick, Kavanaugh. Barring a skeleton in the closet, he’ll be confirmed before the First Monday in October.

Professor Jacobson, I’ve read that the skeleton in Kavanaugh’s closet is his involvement in the Vince Foster situation.

    lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | July 3, 2018 at 11:15 am

    That should have been the Vince Foster ‘suicide.’

      lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | July 3, 2018 at 11:18 am

      Oh, for the ability to edit our comments. One more try.

      Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Foster ‘suicide’ investigation.

      There, think I’m done now. Whew.

A Christian (of any flavor) who takes the words of Scripture seriously is also very likely to take the words of the ratified Constitution seriously.

That is what the “Progressives” really fear in a judge!

inspectorudy | July 3, 2018 at 11:53 am

I would love to see this very distinguished woman get the nomination but she is a mother with 7 kids! After the latest attacks by the left on anyone connected with Trump shows, that person’s private life will be one of constant threats, harassment and vilification. I wonder if she will tell Trump privately to take her name off of the list? At her age and with her young family would any of you take on the burden of having to live in a protected bubble and know that your children’s lives will never be normal? This is something that Clarence Thomas has had to live with his entire term on the court yet nothing like today’s leftist’s monsters offer.

    Immolate in reply to inspectorudy. | July 3, 2018 at 11:58 am

    Consider the stakes. A Christian’s first responsibility is to God. Family comes second. It’s a very prominent second, but not a close second.

CaliforniaJimbo | July 3, 2018 at 12:31 pm

I don’t care if PDJT nominates a man or a woman. I want someone who will interpret the constitution as written and not create laws out of thin air.

    There’s that pernicious word again. If you’re “interpreting” something, you’re not applying it as written. You’re (by definition) translating it into something that fits with your own ideology.

      Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | July 3, 2018 at 2:36 pm

      Wrong. All laws need interpretation, and that is what judges are for. That is their role. That and gradually developing the common law, which as you surely know is judge-made law.

    lgbmiel in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | July 3, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    The courts’ authority is to hear cases and to use the Constitution, laws, and treaties — as written and defined by the law-makers — to decide disputes. That is their authority.

    That is taken right from the Constitution.

      CaliforniaJimbo in reply to lgbmiel. | July 3, 2018 at 1:20 pm

      I can understand the need to perform such interpretation. The first amendment was written in the age of the printing press, what is this internet thing?
      What I don’t like is when someone invents a law that isn’t on the books. If it’s not on the books, pass a darn law. Don’t create them because of the whims of a judge. We’ve seen far too many district court judges do this and even scotus is not innocent in this.

        lgbmiel in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | July 3, 2018 at 1:37 pm

        Defining the law is a power of the law-makers. Who ‘made’ the Constitution — more precisely, the First Amendment? The ones who made it law are the ones who ratified it — the ratifiers are the states. Therefore, only the states can say what the Constitution and the Amendments mean.

        If we don’t have records of how the law-makers defined the Constitution and the Amendments, then we go to how those who wrote the Constitution and Amendments defined them. We do have records of how the framers defined these documents.

        When new parameters arise, we cannot allow the creature to define. That turns the creature into a more powerful being than its creator. It makes the government more powerful than the Constitution and the People.

        We have to reassert control over our ‘creature.’

      Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | July 3, 2018 at 2:40 pm

      That is taken right from the Constitution.

      No, it isn’t. Cite the words of the constitution that say what you just did. You can’t, because they don’t exist. The judiciary’s role was understood to all, and is therefore not given in detail — and that role included both interpretation of statute law and development of the common law. If you’re in any doubt, read the Federalist papers for the contemporary understanding of the courts’ role, or late eighteenth-century court decisions both in the US (whether pre- or post-independence) and the UK.

        lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | July 3, 2018 at 9:40 pm

        Article I Section 1

        All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

        Article III Section 2

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

        Are you telling me you don’t know what these excerpts from the Constitution mean?

        All legislative authority — and defining the law is a legislative authority — is fixed in Congress.

        The courts only have the authority to hear cases and decide disputes. They use — not define — the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties to decide those controversies.

        Believe me, I’ve read the Federalist Papers. Courts cannot create law. Just because our government operates extra-constitutionally does not mean what they are doing is right.

          Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | July 4, 2018 at 3:42 am

          Ignorance. The judicial power is interpreting the written law, and creating the common law.

          Courts cannot create law.

          So where does the common law come from? God?!

          Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | July 4, 2018 at 7:00 am

          You claim to have read the Federalist. Recognize this?

          “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | July 4, 2018 at 9:32 am

          I don’t think you know what the word means. I just quoted the Constitution. That’s not ignorance.

          Do you recognize this — I’m paraphrasing ’cause I’m doing it from memory…

          The court will be the weakest branch because it will not have have the purse or the sword. It can only offer its opinion and must depend on the other branches to carry out those opinions.

          I’ll answer both replies here.

          Again courts cannot make law. They can only offer their opinions. They must rely on the other two branches to carry out those opinions.

          I quoted where the Constitution says all legislative authority is fixed in Congress. The only valid, legal, legitimate, Constitutional law comes from Congress. Everything else is invalid.

          Just because we allow it, doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional. The government has been violating the Constitution for so long that you think it’s perfectly alright. It’s not.

“The dogma lives loudly within you.” Fienstein didn’t mean it as an endorsement, but I sure took it that way. Having read through some of her work, I’m even more impressed, really hoping she gets the nomination.

PersonofInterests | July 3, 2018 at 1:47 pm

Given the mistakes of other Republican Presidents in choosing SCOTUS Nominations, e.g., George W. Bush’s nomination of John Roberts who found Obamacare constitutional; George H. W. Bush’s nomination of David Souter; Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor; Gerald Ford’s nomination of John Paul Stevens; and several of those nominated by Eisenhower, President Trump must be very careful not to nominate another liberal in conserative clothes or an activist judge like Roberts.

Republicans are not likely to lose the U.S. Senate this year and may likely expand the number of their caucus if Mitch McConnell can possibley refrain from stupidly interfering in the elections of others like he did in Alabama, to increase the number in the Republican Caucus and nullify awful liberal Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsky and brain dead radical rogue John McCain.

theduchessofkitty | July 3, 2018 at 2:43 pm

Forget her! Nominate an Evangelical Christian judge to the US Supreme Court.

Sit down and watch as the entire confirmation process becomes a major $#!%storm of Biblical proportions…

Bit of irony from a party whose deputy chairman is a Muslim supremacist.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend