Who Should Trump Nominate for SCOTUS? (Reader Poll)
Barbara Lagoa, Amy Coney Barrett, and Allision Jones Rushing are considered the top contenders.
Trump says he’s nominating a woman to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And he’s doing it this week. So we’re holding an ’emergency’ reader poll. Vote soon, since the decision could come any day. The poll will be open until Trump announces his pick.
We’re limiting the poll to three women widely considered the frontrunners (see Featured Image). That doesn’t preclude a surprise, but Barbara Lagoa (former Florida Supreme Court, current 11th Circuit, age 52), Amy Coney Barrett (7th Circuit, age 48), and Allison Jones Rushing (4th Circuit, age 38) are the names most often mentioned.
The Hill has a fairly neutral write up of the three. For a more expanded list of potential female nominees, see Prof. Josh Blackman’s write up.
Short versions and my take:
Amy Coney Barrett — The strongest record, a scholar, former Scalia clerk, hated by liberals because she’s seen as ‘too Catholic’ and thus a risk to Roe v. Wade. Was seriously considered when Kavanaugh was nominated in 2018, but passed over because Kavanaugh was seen as safer (hah!), and also did not have as extensive an appellate record as Kavanaugh. Her appeals court nomination was hotly contested (55-43 vote), so she’s been vetted more so than most appellate nominees. All the above combined with her having 7 children (5 biological, 2 adopted from Haiti) cause liberal feminist heads to explode.
Barbara Lagoa — Doesn’t have the clerkship and conservative movement pedigree of the others, and served only a short time on the Florida Supreme Court before being recently nominated and confirmed to 11th Circuit. She’s a favorite of Ron DeSantis, and served at a mid-level Florida appeals court for several years. She’s on the short list at least in part because given the current politics, it helps that she’s Cuban-American and from Florida. Not clear how thoroughly she has been vetted since her nomination to the 11th Circuit was not hotly contested (80-15).
Allison Jones Rushing — Considered the least likely of the three to be picked. She’s young (38), but has an impressive resume (Clerked for Thomas at SCOTUS, and Gorsuch at 10th Circuit). On 4th Circuit since 2018. Hated by the left because of her “ties” (not clear what those are or were) to Alliance Defending Freedom. If nominated and confirmed, could be on the court for 40-50 years! Had a contested appeals court nomination (53-44), but not clear if she was vetted as closely as Barrett.
Analysis. The following is premised on Trump pushing for a pre-election confirmation vote: Assuming, as almost everyone does, that it comes down to Barrett and Lagoa, it’s a competition between ideological strength (advantage Barrett) and electoral strength (advantage Lagoa). Regardless of who is nominated, Democrats are going to go scorched earth. Don’t assume it will be worse against Barrett than Lagoa, Democrats historically have displayed particular viciousness for ‘minority’ conservative nominees (Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Neomi Rao). But that presents a dilemma. Assuming Trump pushes for a preelection vote and is not sabotaged by Senate Republicans, Kavanaughing Lagoa in the run up to the election could harm Biden in crucial Florida. That has to be a consideration for Trump. Also balance that Barrett has tasted Democrat fire already, whereas Lagoa has not; nominating a relative unknown carries greater vetting risks. Also consider this: Susan Collins is known to be hostile to Barrett, and while Collins has said the Senate “should” wait, she will will have a vote and it might be easier to bring her along at the end if it’s not Barrett and Mitch McConnell needs her vote to confirm. Rushing is the wild card — she is ideologically strong, but would Trump nominate someone so young in such a sensitive contested timeline?
Poll Open Until Trump Announcement
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Fill the seat”
…..with whichever one most ticks off the Democrats.
“If nominated and confirmed, could be on the court for 40-50 years!”
Or she could dis mysteriously in a Texas hunting lodge at age 43. It’s so hard to be sure these days.
I think he should go with Barrett only because she’s already been through the fire and there should be no surprises.
He can always nominate the next two next February, and really make Democrat heads explode. If court packing is inevitable, let’s our side get a head start on it.
Amy Coney Barrett fits that bill very well….she’s kind of like the NRA….Gun Owners of America might be better in many ways on their positions on guns, but the NRA is the much better known boogeyman to the Dims and the media (BIRM)….she could be the worst of the lot, in a legal sense (and I don’t think that’s the case), but she’s already on their radar and the thought her getting nominated and confirmed has just GOT to have NARAL, NOW, PP, etc etc in a panic….and it’s a good day to be alive when THOSE clowns are running around like their hair’s on fire
OK for this seat we are only discriminating based on Gender. Are you sure we cannot through in Racial discrimination also? Obviously the Democrat senate members will handle the Religious discrimination during the confirmation hearings.
Odd that at the close of 2020 in the USA the #1 criteria for SCOTUS is BOOBS!
“BOOBS” are good.
51% of the voters have them and most of the other 49% likes them so yes, BOOBS matter.
Which is subtly different from “Boob Lives Matter”.
Roughly 50% of them even vote like boobs, so there’s that.
don’t disagree, but should it be the primary criteria for a seat on the supreme court?
The average patient in the hospital in my town has roughly one boob and one testical.
Candidates with BOOBS are also not likely to have someone pop up at the hearings with accusations of rape from decades ago.
See, there you go challenging Murphy again. Would you stop doing that in 2020, please?
@KurtSchlicter of course… 😎
He’s going with the Cuban for the election optics. Do it fast, unapologetically, without BS before they have time to do the Kavanaugh/Clarence Thomas lynching routine. Scorched earth on the GOP traitors.
An extra few percent on the Hispanic vote could be the difference between winning and losing – and it could be more than that if the Dems trash her like Kavanaugh. Also picking a Cuban-American may, depending on her background, provide an anti-Socialism slant as well. Save Barrett to replace Thomas if he retires or replacing someone else, if Trump gets reelected.
I think the premise for the vote – before the election is wrong. That is a short time frame anyway and I think the Dems will be successful in dragging it out. Also, after the election, someone like Collins has nothing to lose by voting for the nominee – either she already won another 6 years as Senator or she is going to be out of the job.
Ginsburg herself was confirmed in less time.
The hispanic community to a large degree is culturally conservative and heavily catholic. Barrett being catholic will likewise pull in some extra hispanic votes, (not as much as Lagoa, but will pull in some)
I also think that Lagoa would pull a lot of Hispanic vote, toward the trump camp
to me it’s a coin toss between Barrett and Lagoa, put in whoever can get the easiest confirmation.
Appointed by ¡Jeb…..do we want another Bish appointee?
Put a wise Latina on the Court to counter the foolish one already there.
“Foolish?”
She’s dumb, as Supreme Court justices go. Kinda like obama is to Presidents. While Jimmy Carter is second at the bottom of the heap, the distance from Carter to obama as the bottom rung is very long. Carter was lost in the White House, but obama was a traitor.
Dumb – foolish – worse of All – she is racist
Ricci – okay to discriminate
Shuette v Bamn – Dissent – Michigan’s constitutional amendment requiring compliance with the US Constitution 14A is unconstitutional
Note that Ginsburg signed on to the Shuette Bamn dissent
That would be risky.
As the article says, she doesn’t have the conservative credentials plus her father in law is also a federal judge of the leftist mold appointed by Bill Clinton.
The last thing needed is another Roberts.
Or worse, a Souter.
to rush the nomination based on optics, we’re likely to end up with another roberts. remember they could be be there a very long time.
let’s ask justice thomas who he would pick!
Amy.
No more rats like John Roberts.
I’m listening to Robert Barnes right now ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSKAf3d8_LY ), and he is saying Barret is going to be another Roberts.
One indication ( he gives a lot reasons ) is that she supported the lockdowns ion one of her decisions.
She also said Catholic Doctrine, and the Pope, would guide her decisions.
Ummmm, what about the US Constitution?
Hard pass.
She sounds like what I suspect Bork would have been. (I read some of his writings. I didn’t trust him.)
/me throws the BS flag…
she said the exact opposite during her Senate hearings.
nice try though.
When did she say that? Have you got a link, please?
Positions similar to what is being alleged come from a law review article she co-wrote from Notre Dame.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1523&context=law_faculty_scholarship
Not sure about following the Pope’s directives, but that would surely follow from the proposition that a judge’s Catholic faith would impact his/her judicial philosophy.
No, it wouldn’t follow at all.
Of course a judge’s faith must impact his judicial philosophy. How could it not? Would anyone suggest that a judge’s knowledge of scientific fact should not impact his judicial philosophy?! Or his knowledge of ethics or history?! So how on earth can one say such a thing about his most fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality and how a person ought to live?
But unless the judge believes that he is the Pope’s slave and must obey the Pope’s directives unquestioningly (which no Catholic believes) it does not at all follow that the Pope would guide his decisions. He might well take the Pope’s views into account, just as one might take those of any other respected person, whether US or foreign; but I can’t imagine anyone criticizing a judge for saying that he keeps Martin Luther King’s views in mind, or Gandhi’s, or Kant’s. Why, in principle, should the Pope be different? (Please no answers that depend on the current Pope being a weak-minded Marxist; answers should apply equally to all popes.)
THAT is an outright Socialist/Communist Party lie. The paper she wrote where they claim she laid out that position must be one they never read among the rest of her writings they didn’t read. She wrote that a Judge should never supplant the law with personal opinions or beliefs. How does that square with the Bravo Sierra you just posted?
She very specifically laid out that “never” in her confirmation hearing to the Circuit Court. Sorry for my early morning confusion.
The point in the livestream where Barnes begins speaking to SCOTUS nominations.
I think it’s instructive that a Federalist Society endorsement doesn’t necessarily mean ‘conservative’ …
I had largely supported Barrett because other conservatives supported her (and she’s reportedly not a fan of stare decisis), but after hearing she supported the IL COVID restrictions (and invoked Jacobson) I have to agree with Barnes.
https://youtu.be/kSKAf3d8_LY?t=2235
I’ll bite, who is Barnes? Is he Fred’s brother or other relative? Never heard of him in over six decades of paying attention to politics.
Yes. Relevant discussion starts about 37 minutes in.
Amy IS another John Roberts….have you looked at her actual record…
on almost every civil rights case on side of big authoritarian government, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations. I feel exactly the same about her as I did Roberts cause the evidence of how they will rule is already there..
I read on a satirical site a joke of Trump tweeting that he was going to nominate Joe Biden so the Dems would start talking about his past sexual misconduct.
Maybe they should take Harris off the ticket, and run Ginsburg’s corpse. (Even dead, she’d be more likable and trustworthy than Harris.)
Too soon. Even for RBG.
I want him to nominate Sarah Pitlyk. I’m into seeing liberal heads exploding. She’s brilliant (Fulbright Scholar), young and ideologically as strong, if not more so, as Rushing.
A straight white Protestant male. This would make even more heads explode.
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: Break this cycle of “Ginsberg’s seat” (Jewish female), “Marshal’s seat” (black), “Sotomayor’s seat” (Latina, wise or not; female diabetic “ethnic” unqualified).
too much work explaining; so, not likely
Is that a defense?
ACB in that surprises are getting hard to take, like when out of the blue they pull something like saving Obama care out of their ass.
The Dhimmi-, Dementiacrat Left will hear that metrically as
“Lock her up,” inferring we mean now, Pelosi, and rebel/defy/resist, etc.
A post-fact/sense, post-custom/principle, post-constitution era’s ways, means, and ends — for all, damn you, whether you like it or not!
ACB. She’s vetted and has a strong record.
One does not know where Lagoa stands on the 2nd and 10th, as well as other Amendments. She didn’t cut her teeth on clerkships with widely proven constitutionalists. Not enough background material. We shouldn’t select a one issue Justice. We should select a Constitutionalist Justice. Save her for future vetting.
Rushing. Great option. Clerked with heavy hitters. Young and hated by the left.
I like the idea of Allison Jones Rushing, but she’s young enough that Trump could nominate her to replace Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan. Thomas, age 72, or Alito, age 70, could retire in a 2nd term of Trump as well. Thomas is 72, Altio is 70.
I was surprised to learn Gorsuch at 53 is 2 years younger than Kavanaugh.
None of them give off a particularly “tough” aura, and when a not-tough-enough nominee inevitably withdraws after Drat attacks, that will make it much harder for #2, as the sharks will be frolicking in all that bloody water.
Besides, when I read about Barrett I hear my inner Lost in Space robot saying “Danger! Danger!”. My totally random guess is that in some important ways she’d prove to be a semi-Liberal disguised as a human being; a Robertsesque disaster on the Court.
I completely agree.
But, ACB saved two Haitian children from Hillary’s sex trafficking ring.
I’m a bit leery of ACB, as she might turn out to be a stealth candidate who would “grow” in office and thus earn the “strange new respect” of the Left.
I don’t have a problem with her devout Catholicism, which suggests she would be good on pro-life issues. It’s the rest of the package that worries me. She might turn out to buy into the Marxism of Pope Francis on everything else.
I wouldn’t worry about that. She’s written that although she believes no Catholic judge can in good conscience cause someone to be executed, the law is clearly for capital punishment and the government is entitled to have someone sentenced to death executed, so for a Catholic judge has no right to vote against an execution just because he thinks it wrong; thus his only option is to recuse himself and let someone else do it.
Only commenting on this miss interpretation capital punishment is murder, it just isn’t.
Huh? Who suggested that it is?
If we’re trying to get this done pre-election then I’m going with Barrett as she’s the most well known of the 3. If Mitch keeps things strictly to what’s already known about her, doesn’t allow any Dem BS from out of nowhere, the arguments and procedures should be able to be done quickly.
Neomi Rao is a brilliant jurist. Given the slander standard in play, I think a female nominee will reacquaint women voters with just how ugly Dems are to women and minorities in their way.
Fill the seat.
Amy Coney Barrett is far from a Thomas-level pick (which is my gold standard). She supports stare decisis, opposes the death penalty and would recuse herself from such cases she says, and has some other opinions that are not quite up to my standard.
The fact that she feels her religion means she needs to recuse herself from some cases could be further exploited (if I take her at her word)
That being said, all will be better than a Dem pick
Fill the seat. Many have been confirmed faster than this. Get ‘er done.
“Fill the seat.” Good point – almost anyone will do from the perspective of the disaster that a 4-4 vote on election issues could be for the country.
Don’t just “fill the seat.” Pick a judicial Constitutional warrior like Scalia or Thomas. Don’t settle for less.
As I’ve read that she is not a fan of stare, I’d appreciate a source for her favoring stare. I’m open to being convinced that what I read is wrong.
Fill the seat, yes, but be careful who you fill it with. We don’t need a Sessions on the court – a new appointee who suddenly recuses his/herself from anything to do with this election.
Me, except that I believe the abortion issue belongs at the state level.
I’m ready for the downticks.
Which means Roe and Casey need to be overturned.
As do a lot of the laws addressing congressional district apportionment. Set-asides for protected minorities and all that sort of thing.
Who is the Pelosi/Collins fan down voting overturning Roe and Casey? Technically if Roe is overturned and abortion decisions returned to the states, I don’t know where Casey would be as IIRC at the time it was decided it set a standard for Federal Courts to review abortion restrictions. Without a federal nose in the abortion issue granted by Roe, I don’t know that Casey would be operative – but I’m sure some California Judge, or even US Magistrate (bored with hearing Misdemeanor cases, Federal Parking garage tickets and signing off on Applications for a Search Warrant), would issue a nationwide opinion on abortion using Casey as a basis.
For all practical purposes – Roe was overturned –
Unfortunately it was overturned by Casey
No. It was expanded by Casey.
Personally I think Margaret Ryan from the Armed Forces Court would be a good one.
She would be, though her age and retirement from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are against that pick. I have seen statements that she has “Senior Status” on that Court, but the statute controlling Senior Status (at least for Article III Judges) requires the retiring Judge be 65 years old or older and she isn’t that old. Unlike Article III Court Judges, this Article I Court has a statutory limit of 15 years for Judges on the court and she was retired after completing the 15 years.
Barrett said she would not make an opinion that goes against the Pope. That is troubling in and of itself. I have no issue with her following her faith, but that should not short circuit American legal logic for the entire nation. Furthermore Francis has some pretty far left leanings – socialist. Marxist. I do not want to play with that fire.
She would be a Ginsberg if she did, referring to foreign law as a guide. Nope. Pass.
Have you got a link to that? I don’t recall such a statement, and a quick web search hasn’t turned it up.
Ask for a link/reference from a person posting what many believe to be a lie* and you get down voted for asking? Well, it is 2020, the year from Hell and getting worse by the day.
* Though I think the poster likely believes it to be true, whether because he read it from a source he believes or, less likely, simply believes Papists should never be in government.
Far be it from me to prevent liberal feminist heads from exploding.
Please cite one ruling on any important issue that demonstrates Barrett’s strong conservative and Constitutional credentials.
She’s Catholic and has a lot of kids. That’s the only argument I keep hearing for her.
Has anybody ever heard her speak? She’s a squish.
No to Barrett.
First in her class at Notre Dame Law School, clerked for Thomas, Professor of Law at Notre Dame. Solidly Pro Life in thought and deed. Your squish comment is itself squishy.
“Vetted” is good, but it will only matter to people who care about the truth. The Kavanaugh farce eliminated any doubt that the anti-American coalition will do absolutely anything to win. If there’s nothing to criticize about a nominee, they’ll simply make up some lies and unleash some hysterical mobs.
Nominate the best available candidate.
I’m waiting for the womyn to come out alleging Lesbian affairs with whichever woman is nominated. Schmeckel Schumer has binders full of womyn ready. And also in those binders will be those who will allege that the nominee ran a successful “Escort Service”, for fun and profit, out of her dorm room.
Who can avoid thinking like a woman the longest, is the question.
Thinking like a man is something women can do, obviously in STEM fields, but it makes them tense and anxious, and they wind up joining the Women’s Workplace Issues Committee.
A similar thing may happen on the Supreme Court, when it comes to structure vs feelings. You want a structure court.
>
THIS!
I chose Amy in the vote, but Trump is going to make the decision- and he know more than me-I’ll support whoever he picks.
I’m up for a nominee with SOLID conservative ideology to help dilute Roberts’ and Gorsuch’s wanderings into judicial legislating. Amy’s my choice, but I do love the electoral jujitsu thinking about Lagoa.
My votes for Logoa – for the simple reason that Amy would be a firefight and we may not get her in before the election. Logoa, dems will be in trouble if they attack her too hard.
Well…
Professor Jacobson?
Wll, he isn’t on the list.
Is that a requirement? Where is that list?
Or is it a forgone conclusion that it will be a girl?
I want someone heartless, who will not bend.
No touchy-feely ” let’s Nominate based upon Gender ”
Which is what I am getting.
Not ethnicity.
Not
gendersex.Not a language-sourced ethnicity.
Not religion, especially those who openly talk up using theirs as a, or the, basis of their decisions. It’s one reason I opposed Bork.
Not someone to fill my above-mentioned reserved seats.
Problem with ACB is she is devoutly anti Capital Punishment.
Her personal views on capital punishment are irrelevant to her job if she were on the Supreme Court. In that position she would never be called on to personally order an execution.
The closest she’d come would be when voting on whether to grant a stay, and I don’t she’d feel obliged to do so in a case where she knew it wasn’t legally justified. But even if she did, stays don’t last forever, and when it comes to deciding the case, which would be a pure question of law, she should have no problem voting for what she believes the law says, even if she doesn’t agree with it and regrets the consequences her vote will have for the appellant.
I don’t think the Dems worry about Florida they already wrote off Cubans.
With as little as I know, I’m a little shy of ACB’s decisions involving government power against people’s rights. Lagoa has the advantage of not being controversial, and already been approved by the Senate, which can be a good hammer if used right.
“Senator Fogbottom(D), you voted for approving Judge Lagoa to the District Court of Appeals just X months ago, and now you’re opposing her for the Supreme Court. How can you justify this sudden change of opinion?”
That’s an easy one to explain. “Well Senator, as most of my colleagues will agree, I have grown while in office and have now learned of (whatever made up scandal) that has me now doubting her alleged credentials.”
Amy Coney Barrett has two adopted children from Haiti. I’ll bet that if Barrett is the nominee, the Communists will go after her adopted children and claim that she stole or kidnapped them.
It is impossible to exaggerate the nuclear-hot hatred the Left has for interracial anything – marriage, friendship, or adoption – since these blow the sacred Communist narrative of “widespread systemic racism” out of the water. Blacks and whites getting along and (gulp!) perhaps even loving each other? Inconceivable!
And in this election year the usual Communist bigotry against interracial relationships has an apocalyptic political edge. The Kavanaugh nomination was a relatively meaningless preseason scrimmage by comparison. This is the Super Bowl.
Interesting observation. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that a desired nominee may decline. For example, Barrett may take her chances on Trump winning and having another shot at it in order to avoid the toxic effect on her 7 children of what is coming, the oldest of whom looks to be about 19. Don’t think the Left won’t go directly after her children. If offered the nomination, my money is on her declining.
McConnell should not hold any hearings after the abomination the Democrats wreaked during the Kavanaugh nomination.
Just nominate and hold the vote.
^^^ THIS
virtue-signaling, or being a trendie in such matters, like Hollywood people adopting African kids.
There are a heck of a lot of American children looking for a home; what’s wrong with them aside from not giving one virtue points at Georgetown cocktail parties?
There are a heck of a lot of American children looking for a home; what’s wrong with them
American kids are a lot harder and more expensive to adopt. That’s a huge “what’s wrong”.
Judge Barbara Lagoa would probably be easier to confirm than ACB. And the fact that she is Hispanic could help the GOP electorally in AZ, NM, NV, and NC. And that she is Cuban-American can also help particularly in FL. If “Little” Mike is putting up $50-100M to help Biden in FL, than we can’t take FL for granted. Lagoa being from Miami should really play well in Dade County and the rest of the state. It might be hard for DJT to win 270 EV without taking FL.
Got it: he should nominate Rush Limbaugh.
Kinda like the democrats nominating obama, though Limbaugh is exponentially smarter.
He might have a little problem passing the physical. Plus he has Stage 4 lung cancer.
Rubio carried water for McCain and is now protecting the most corrupt committee in the senate: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Rubio claims that as committee chairman, he has to gain permission from Mark Warner, the Vice Chairman, before giving Senators Johnson and Grassley the information they are looking for.
Anyway, if Rubio is supporting Logoa, I’d rule her out of contention for that reason alone.
Barrett and Rushing would be my choice. Barrett has made some confusing remarks regarding the conflicts between her religion and the law that might bear further study.
if Rubio is supporting Logoa
It’s probably entirely ethnic solidarity – she’s Cuban-American, and so is he.
I believe we should pick from the entire list.
Which is not presented.
What is presented looks like a beauty contest.
Look, it ain’t.
It is a Nomination to the Supreme Court.
Can we keep our eye on the ball, please?
The Second Amendment. That is the only question that counts. The way that is answered tells you about all the rest of the issues.
The Second Amendment is the only Defense to the First Amendment.
Girls build nest’s, raise babies, cook and make life worth the effort.
Boys conquer Nations, kill stuff and break things while bringing home the winnings.
Pick your champion.
Give Clarence Thomas two votes and call the whole thing off.
Alison’s Rushing for the Constitutional win
ACB. Exquisite academic and personal credentials. Let the Democrats attack a mother of seven, two of whom are adopted black children. Expand the Catholic vote for an electoral blowout.
chose barret due to the prior vetting. with that being said its horrifying we’re playing identity politics with scotus.
shameful shameful times.
The segregationists brought us identity politics, and decent people stood by and did nothing. Why? They trembled – and still tremble – in fear or being called “racist!!!”.
MICHELLE OBAMA’s nomination will assure Trump’s re-election with the inclusion of Black women, disaffected Dems, and other minorities. Trump gets re-relected and with the ‘king on his throne’ the politics change dramatically. Trump and Mitch can reject her in favor of Barrett or even another candidate. Trump rules and all is happy for 4 more years.
I don’t really care who Pres. Trump nominates. He just needs to get someone nominated and through the confirmation process as quickly as possible with no delays. And to hell with Schumer and the rest of the democrats.
We have to stop calculating what we do according to the Left’s temperament or prerogatives or based on shortsighted expedience. We don’t nominate someone just to get them through, or to avoid a fight. This is a lifetime position with vast implications to the nation. We nominate the strongest candidate, one who will stand for the Constitution through any storm, and we fight for them if necessary.
“I don’t really care who Pres. Trump nominates. He just needs to get someone nominated and through the confirmation process as quickly as possible with no delays. And to hell with Schumer and the rest of the democrats.”
That’s a mighty dangerous mindset. Thinking like that will only get us another Roberts on the court.
Here’s an out-of-the-box idea:
Kimberly Klacik
It’s unlikely she’ll win that election in Baltimore (though I would otherwise hope beyond hope she would), as those folks are tribalistic about their Dem politicians. So, nominate her to SCOTUS, and body slam Biden’s “black woman” malarkey. (And, she’ll likely outlive the two other women on the court.)
If Amy Barrett is asked the question about whether her religion would guide her decisions, she needs to answer exactly the same way JFK answered that question during the runup to the 1959 presidential election. To paraphrase, he said he would be the President of the United States and follow the Constitution and American law, and the Pope wouldn’t be involved.
She should also point out who said it and which major party he belonged to. Let the Dimocrats deal with it as they want.
.
The Babylon Bee says that President Trump will nominate himself.
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-nominates-himself-to-the-supreme-court
The Bee IS the paper of record. I expect to see a NYT headline backing the BEE.
What contingencies await the strong possibility Dems will not participate in a supposed full-senate vote, prior to 11/3?
Good. They’re not needed, so if they boycott we will be spared the hysterics and the confirmation will be unanimous.
But they live on hysterics, so that’s not going to happen.
Pretty sure a quorum is required to take the vote.
At this point nominating Professor Jacobson seems like a better idea. Nothing says a justice needs prior judicial experience.
Can we trust Amy?
See https://humanevents.com/2019/10/07/rejoinder-is-amy-coney-barrett-the-best-choice-for-scotus/
It’s a fair question. JFK said he would put the law before his Roman Catholic faith, and he did. SCOTUS justices often make the law. Most Catholic doctrine, and not only these days, is closer to leftism than conservatism.
It’s better than the current far-leftism. But is she a big-state advocate?
There is one pick here that will probably get through and help Trump in Florida and that is Barbara Lagoa. She is Hispanic. She is from Florida. She is the daughter of immigrants. Barrett is the daughter of rich corporate people. Lagoa politically works better. I have no idea who is a better judge.
Nominate Merrick Garland, Obama’s choice. Watch democrats
explode. Defeated in Senate vote. Start over with Barret.
The Dems would confirm in a heartbeat, and he would vote to award the presidency to Biden/Harris.
And, the WaPo has already begun, trying to smear Coney-Barrett with making due process available to the accused on college campuses:
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1308006561328115712
Let them go right ahead. That’s a good thing.
That makes me really respect her.
Assuming we limit the nomination to those listed in the poll choices what is the issue?
All three are serving on an Appellate Court of the United States. That ain’t chopped liver. No crying about CV.
All three were nominated and confirmed less than three years ago. The Senate has had their bite at the apple. If they want to argue that their votes and opinions since confirmation have been disqualifying then surely the Senate and HoR Judiciary Committee would have introduced resolutions admonishing these decisions if not moving to impeach them?
That’s how the system is supposed to work. The HoR and Senate have oversight, to a degree, of the Federal Judiciary. If they failed to exercise that power previously because it would have been disastrous politically, tough.
Bottom line is any sitting Judge on a Federal CT of Appeal has already gone through a confirmation. Sitting on the CT is their CV. Since the Senate has not admonished them or worked.with the HoR to remove them via impeachment, they have already given an implied endorsement.
Call the.roll and have the floor vote.
And on the other hand, such recent appointment means they’re a bit less seasoned than optimal for SCOTUS. But we’ll probably run into that problem anyway, if we’re looking for a woman, simply as an extra constraint. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were prodigies, getting to the circuit court at such young ages that they were still young with 10 years of appellate experience.
While I’d like to see a Justice Rushing because she’s a local kid made good (she’s from WNC), I think she is still too young at 38.
Lagoa is the safer choice but I’d rather see a Justice Barrett.
This is no time for affirmative action, or political calculation — limiting the choice to females is bad enough. We need the most conservative and constitutionalist judge possible to counteract the flakes and socialists.
The Democrats are going to be as vicious in attacking another flake (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) as a good one. Trump needs to pick the best (which by what’s been made public would be Barrett), and push McConnell to do his job and get her approved with the minimum of procedure and public show.
Why is Barrett better than the others? We know she has many children, which is great, and I am more comfortable if the judges have families. But the record is thin for all of them isn’t it, around 3 years of appellate experience. We don’t know their reasoning on a wide range of issues.
There’s no way to know if she’s any better, but there seems to be more information available about her, and none of it adverse. She’s the safest bet to get a good one. You never know what you’re getting in a Supreme Court justice until they’ve been there a few years and settled in to the job. They don’t necessarily behave as one would expect, or as they did before.
It doesn’t really matter, cause the Dems will scorch earth anyone who is nominated. Look for much worse thanKavanaugh. I vote for Barrett, simply because she’s already been thru the fire wit( th3 same group of evil people.
I believe Rushing was a Trump nominee to the circuit court too. It might be useful to see which of them fought the Dem mud throwing better in their appellate confirmation.
Amy Coney Barrett. She is almost unimpeachable. She garnered bipartisan support from Tim Kaine D-VA, Joe Manchin D-W. VA and Joe Donnelly D-LA. during her 2017 confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. And it’s likely she would get additional bipartisan support this go round since some Senate seats in swing states are up for grabs. Collins, Murkowski, and Romney won’t play their predictable games either. Confirmed 55 to 43 for 7th Circuit. Originalist, former Law Clerk for Antonin Scalia, brilliant, top of her class on full scholarship at Notre Dame, and fantastic resume. She could get quick confirmation, and at least the filthy Dems couldn’t accuse her of being a gang rapist. I think Trump had her teed up for a SCOTUS nomination from the beginning by nominating her for the 7th Circuit to build up her resume. Another clue – Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were not on the first list for SCOTUS picks, they were on the second list. Amy Coney-Barrett is on the second list.
Sure they could. Just try them.
That’s a pretty close vote for a circuit court. A few Dems supported her, almost all opposed. I guess it’s the same story with Rushing.
If they want to put the Dems in a box having to vote against someone they recently voted to approve for the appeals court, they would go with Lagoa. But I think that for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, that logic didn’t stop a single Dem from voting against them, even if they were in the Senate and had approved their nominations for their appeals court seats.
Barrett. Go for broke.
I’m reading the ACB wikipedia on notable cases. Sounds pretty good.
BONUS:I believe we should start calling her ACAB. This might force the functionally retarded BLM people into cleaning all their graffiti.
Scott, what of ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY v. J.B. PRITZKER?
I find it odd that there isn’t a single comment (unless I overlooked one) dealing with one of the most important aspects of this nomination: picking someone who won’t feel obligated to recuse him/herself from any consideration or ruling arising from lawsuits dealing with the current election. We can’t afford another Souter – or another Sessions.
The prime qualification of a good judge is to put personal preferences and beliefs aside, and rule according to what the law demands in the particular controversy before the court. Anyone fit for the position would never think of recusing themself, and meet your standard. Unfortunately, most of the present lot are unfit (whether, or not they recuse).
I think generally they recuse themselves from cases already before SCOTUS before they joined the Court, and from direct conflicts of interest.
Which could explain why Trump wants a vote before the election. He doesn’t want the justice recusing on election-related issues.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-allison-jones-rushing-possible-trump-supreme-court-contender says of Judge Rushing:
“She was also a summer law clerk with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2007. She graduated from Wake Forest University then went on to Duke University School of Law. Rushing’s political past includes time as a volunteer legal adviser for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.”
So she could BOTH help in the swing state of North Carolina, and ALSO it seems more likely that Sen. Mitt Romney will vote to confirm her. And with the contested vote for the appointment to the circuit court, the devious Dems surely didn’t neglect to look for dirt.
I want Lagoa, but I will go along with whoever Stephen Miller prefers. He seems to be the one adviser that gets it right time after time.
Ted Cruz or nobody.
i agree, why are we limiting ourselves to only women? why exclude 50% of the likely candidates? isn’t this what the democrats do? you’d like to think we would want the person that’s most qualified!
Amy’s have been down teh road already. Be hard to say no when you just said yes. As long as Roberts swing vote no longer matters I’m good.
I like the Victorious ACB.
i had always thought that conservatives cared not for skin color or biology. we believed (so i thought) that the best person for the job was the driving criteria. now we’re following the lead of our liberal friends and selecting candidates based on physical features.
a sad day indeed, when we start acting like them!
Lagoa. Barrett’s ruling in support of Gov. Pritzker’s lockdown of IL was egregious. Barnes suggests that this is a pattern for her. He also points out that the clerkship business can be gamed. I find his reasoning compelling.
I’m not all clear why Jacobson argues in favor of Barrett’s ideological (maybe not the best word) superiority over Lagoa. It can’t be that Professor Jacobson likes it that Barrett ruled for Pritzker based on the Jacobson case …. 🙂