quote:

Originally posted by clipper1:
The sixth paragraph of Stephan Hessler's Memo posted by JAllen refers to a judge as 'her'?

“the judge who succeeds in that task thereby does her part to maintain our constitutional separation of powers.”
Is it some idiosyncrancy in the legal world to refer to judges as 'her'?

The quoted line is by Judge Kethledge in a law review article..

quote:

As [Kethledge] explained in a recent law review article, a judge’s task is to unearth “the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.” Accordingly, “the judge who succeeds in that task thereby does her part to maintain our constitutional separation of powers.”

I didn't say who the quote was by, JAllen. I just stated that the quote was in the sixth paragraph.

quote:

Originally posted by clipper1:
I didn't say who the quote was by, JAllen. I just stated that the quote was in the sixth paragraph.

I noticed that. I was hoping that pointing out the source would help you.

Without reference to the law review article itself, we are unable to delve further. The soul of legal writing is the precise use of language, and Kethledge is being advanced as superior among legal writers, so I would think there is a good chance that the context of the law review article would clarify his meaning.

The more I read about Judge Kethledge the more I like him.

Barrett and Kavanaugh.

I voted for Barrett, but the photo posted on the last says more than anything else I've seen regarding the aforementioned candidates and the 2nd Amendment. I'm going to be happy if he gets the nod.

I'd go for Barrett. She seems perfectly acceptable, and the fact that she's a women would tie the Dems up in knots.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I'd go for Barrett. She seems perfectly acceptable, and the fact that she's a women would tie the Dems up in knots.

FantasyJustice has her winning by better than 2 to 1 over her closest competitor, Kethledge.

I just pray we don't get snookered by another Souter.

Fantasy Justice!

When reality just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Who needs prayer when you have fantasies.

That's the problem with lifetime appointment, he makes his choice then we take our chances.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I'd go for Barrett. She seems perfectly acceptable, and the fact that she's a women would tie the Dems up in knots.

FantasyJustice has her winning by better than 2 to 1 over her closest competitor, Kethledge.

I just pray we don't get snookered by another Souter.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Fantasy Justice!

When reality just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Who needs prayer when you have fantasies.

Nothing wrong with having both.

I pray that my fantasy will come true that my prayers are answered.

It's probably better than rotisserie justice.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Fantasy Justice!

When reality just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Who needs prayer when you have fantasies.

quote:

Originally posted by Ricardokid11:
...Kavanaugh.

I don't want anyone associated with the Bush family sitting on the Supreme Court.

Call him conservative all day long, but his record of being an insider with that family is clear.

I hope President Trump listens to his instinct instead of McConnell.

New York Times editorial board calls for violence in opposing SCOTUS choice.

Hardimann sounds like the right type overall:
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’.

I would be very concerned that a woman would go soft on the Second Amendment over time. Also we need someone with a track record, which is more reliable than words or a promise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.103e9c978775

In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

[Amy Coney Barrett, possible Supreme Court nominee, has backed ‘flexible’ approach to court precedent]

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”

Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.

Hardiman, 52, joined the federal bench after being nominated by George W. Bush in 2003. Three years later, he was confirmed to the appeals court. In 2017, he was one of two finalists to fill the seat that had belonged to Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump ultimately chose Neil M. Gorsuch.

But now Hardiman — who, according to Politico, has been endorsed by his colleague on the 3rd Circuit — and the president’s sister — Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is said to again be among a handful of judges who have made Trump’s short­list, a possibility that has alarmed gun-control advocates.
The WaPo article continues for many more paragraphs.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

I like Kavanaugh and Hardiman as both appear strong on the Second Amendment. It is good to hear that McConnell likes Hardiman's chances and Ketheridge seems good on the Second Amendment too but does not have the record of Hardiman and Kavanaugh. I am not a fan of McConnell at all but he did well delaying the replacement of Scalia and then getting Gorsuch confirmed. He does have the insight on the senate about this matter. Getting President Trump's first choice confirmed and in a fairly timely manner would be nice to see.

As of this morning, Fantasy SCOTUS stats still has the top four rumoured contenders at:

Barrett: 27%
Kethledge: 12%
Kavanaugh: 9%
Hardiman: 3%

Pretty much unchanged, other than Barrett up by 1%, in the last three days.

PredictIt: Who will be Trump's next Supreme Court nominee? seems much more on top of things, predicting Kethledge, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Hardiman, in that order.

However, current (?) betting odds appear to favour Barrett, Kavanaugh, Hardiman, Kethledge, in that order.

The day is nigh upon us.

After reading the prognosticators and such I am going to go out on a limb and place my bet on:

Kavanaugh