From a strictly legal perspective, Scalia is one of the most brilliant *judicial* minds to ever be on the SCOTUS. I believe slappy, who is certainly no conservative, used to talk often about how much he enjoyed reading his opinions.ACB just said her philosophy was the same as Scalia’s, but no need to freak out leftists.
Yup. She is eminently qualified.If Barrett believes that women should be meekly submissive, then someone needs to tell her that she's screwing it up by going to law school, clerking for two prominent judges, teaching at Notre Dame, and sitting on the Seventh Circuit, where, oddly enough, not one of her opinions says "I defer to my male colleagues because they're men and I'm supposed to do whatever they say."
Can she be a right handed shot?But is she likeable?
She just said in her remarks that she agreed.Religion shouldn’t qualify or dis-qualify anyone from office. Religious beliefs shouldn’t drive policy/ decide anything ever, imo.So we should have a religious test for office?Meanwhile, her POP “membership” just reinforces her positions on things. It’s the symptom, not the ‘ailment.’
The second it does, is the major problem.
If she thinks that about women's roles she's doing a terrible job of living that out in real life.It’s not the religion, it’s the belief in a natural order/hierarchy that hasn’t existed since women went to work in the factories in WW2.So we should have a religious test for office?Meanwhile, her POP “membership” just reinforces her positions on things. It’s the symptom, not the ‘ailment.’
As for police immunity, in that respect she’s better than Trump’s other possibility from FL who’s name I don’t remember. It just jives with the Govt’t shouldn’t exist to guarantee practically anything mentality of conservatives so it’s one of few subjects I’ve always thought everybody could come together on.
As for Chevron, Scalia was very much in the mindset that you never needed it because if it’s written in the law verbatim you can do it, and if not you can’t. He never saw a gray area. Haven’t found anything on ACB’s views yet.
More accurate schedule:Schedule is out.
Like everything else, proof is in the pudding.She just said in her remarks that she agreed.Religion shouldn’t qualify or dis-qualify anyone from office. Religious beliefs shouldn’t drive policy/ decide anything ever, imo.So we should have a religious test for office?Meanwhile, her POP “membership” just reinforces her positions on things. It’s the symptom, not the ‘ailment.’
The second it does, is the major problem.
What of her record on the bench reflects your concern?Like everything else, proof is in the pudding.She just said in her remarks that she agreed.Religion shouldn’t qualify or dis-qualify anyone from office. Religious beliefs shouldn’t drive policy/ decide anything ever, imo.So we should have a religious test for office?Meanwhile, her POP “membership” just reinforces her positions on things. It’s the symptom, not the ‘ailment.’
The second it does, is the major problem.
I mean, couldn’t you also just says that Shockingly, almost every republican will vote yes? This isn’t partisan in just one side.More accurate schedule:Schedule is out.
Oct 12: Grandstanding.
Oct. 13+14: Grandstanding only slightly disguised as questions. The nominee's answers are irrelevant.
Oct. 15: Start wasting time when every Democrat has already decided to vote no.
Oct. 22: Shockingly, every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee votes no.
Oct. 26: Every member of the Senate finally gets a turn to grandstand, rather than just the Judiciary Committee members.
Oct. 28 or 29th: Shockingly, every Democrat again votes no.
I actually think she’s probably more qualified than Kavanaugh.What of her record on the bench reflects your concern?Like everything else, proof is in the pudding.She just said in her remarks that she agreed.Religion shouldn’t qualify or dis-qualify anyone from office. Religious beliefs shouldn’t drive policy/ decide anything ever, imo.
So we should have a religious test for office?
The second it does, is the major problem.
How do you plan on judging that going forward (no pun intended)?
So then she’s a hypocrite religiously, and I suddenly identify with her a lot moreIf she thinks that about women's roles she's doing a terrible job of living that out in real life.It’s not the religion, it’s the belief in a natural order/hierarchy that hasn’t existed since women went to work in the factories in WW2.So we should have a religious test for office?Meanwhile, her POP “membership” just reinforces her positions on things. It’s the symptom, not the ‘ailment.’
As for police immunity, in that respect she’s better than Trump’s other possibility from FL who’s name I don’t remember. It just jives with the Govt’t shouldn’t exist to guarantee practically anything mentality of conservatives so it’s one of few subjects I’ve always thought everybody could come together on.
As for Chevron, Scalia was very much in the mindset that you never needed it because if it’s written in the law verbatim you can do it, and if not you can’t. He never saw a gray area. Haven’t found anything on ACB’s views yet.
I mean being on SCOTUS kind of flies in the face of being the mom on Leave It to Beaver.
It's almost like whoever is feeding information to the outlets you are reading doesn't know anything about her.
The group she belongs to is interesting, but admittedly being a SCOTUS Judge doesn’t jive with their 30 second outline of fairly rigid gender roles.you should’ve thrown a fake name in there to see if we were actually reading the list or notAppellate practice is its own world with specialized skills. It's probably the most "academic" of the various legal specialties, and it requires someone to be highly skilled in research, writing, and critical thinking. People with those skills make for good appellate judges, and plenty of SCOTUS nominees never had judicial experience prior to taking the bench, including Elena Kagan, Lewis Powell, Byron White, William Douglas, Harlan Stone, Felix Frankfurter, Owen Roberts, Louis Brandeis, and plenty more. Heck, John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Hughes, and Earl Warren had never been judges before being appointed as Chief Justice.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 256 guests
