^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, no, no. THEY...gave us Baby Love. NOT Onumb-nutz care...

It looks like Edith Roberts is preparing a review of each potential nominee each day on SCOTUSblog.

http://www.scotusblog.com/cate...ice-anthony-kennedy/

So far, Brett Kavanaugh and Don Willett are there. More to follow.

I thought that I heard that the list of 20-25 candidates that he has to choose from is entirely Catholic (could be wrong there).

You can be your sweet patootie that the commie Senators are going to do everything they possibly can to Bork any or all of them. All we are going to hear for the next several months or more is Roe, Roe, Roe, and Roe. Trump wants to ban abortions! Republicans are against women's right to choose! Etc..., etc..., etc....

And just wait until Feinshteen gets her chance to attack another Catholic.

He said he had five finalists, though he may interview 7 people.

I would be elated if Don Willet was the nominee.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I thought that I heard that the list of 20-25 candidates that he has to choose from is entirely Catholic (could be wrong there).

You can be your sweet patootie that the commie Senators are going to do everything they possibly can to Bork any or all of them. All we are going to hear for the next several months or more is Roe, Roe, Roe, and Roe. Trump wants to ban abortions! Republicans are against women's right to choose! Etc..., etc..., etc....

And just wait until Feinshteen gets her chance to attack another Catholic.

Kavanaugh and Barratt are Catholic. Willett is non-Catholic Christian of some sort. William Pryor’s Catholicism kept him from being confirmed straight away when nominated by W to the Court of Appeals a decade ago, a victim of the cabal of Judiciary Committee members who refused to vote on anyone who might be sympathetic to overtirning Roe v. Wade.

I don’t know about the others.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Kavanaugh and Barratt are Catholic. Willett is non-Catholic Christian of some sort.

Willet attends or attended Lake Hills Church in Austin. It's a non-denominational Christian church.
https://www.texastribune.org/d...ory/bio/don-willett/
https://www.lhc.org/

Roe, Roe, Roe your boat

That leftist whore Gillibrand is so down to her bones obstructionist that she completely convinced herself that no democrats ever voted for Gorsuch.

Jesus, lady, you were there. How do you forget such a monumental vote? You really suck at your job, you know that?

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wrongly stated that no Democrat voted for Neil Gorsuch and had to walk that statement back in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo Thursday night.

WATCH: video at link

“He didn’t get a vote from one Democrat. And I believe now that we’ve seen what Gorsuch has done in the court, he’s already undermined women’s rights, already union rights, already civil rights in this country, I don’t think people are going to trust that President Trump isn’t going to do what he said he was going to do,” Sen. Gillibrand stated.

Chris Cuomo just had to correct Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on whether any Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. She said none did. He informed that three did. Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly (who had dinner with Trump tonight) all voted for him.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 29, 2018

“Are you right that he didn’t get one vote? Didn’t he get three?” the CNN anchor asked.

After holding strong one more time, she finally realized her mistake.

“You might be right, Chris, but I believe this Democratic caucus will stand together. You’re really deciding whether or not you value women and you want them to have basic civil rights and civil liberties.”

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly all voted in for Gorsuch.

Gillibrand was on CNN discussing the new vacancy on the Supreme Court with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy being announced earlier this week.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...d-democrats-gorsuch/

quote:

Thus, Kennedy's decision not to live forever -- or at least until a Democratic appointee could replace the Reagan-appointed justice -- was seen as a personal betrayal, because the political has become so personal for so many.

The panic unfolding across the progressive landscape stems from the creeping fear that the Supreme Court might start doing its job -- and not the job progressives have assigned it.

Awesome sauce!

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
FDR did have a court packing plan to expand the number of justices.

He didn't do it, but mostly because the Supremes stopped striking down New Deal legislation pretty quickly after the threat. He probably had the votes to get it done.

The court could be expanded in number, but it would take having the Presidency and the House and the Senate OR the House and Senate with a veto-proof super majority.

Term limits on judges would take a constitutional amendment.

Trump should go ahead and do it!

"hey, we have the Presidency and the House and the Senate... so we will go ahead and expand the Court to 15, adding 6 more conservative justices. Justice Ginsburg need not retire, she can nap all she wants, she will be irrelevant."

June 30, 2018

Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court
By Daniel John Sobieski

The 5-4 SCOTUS decisions upholding the constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban and declaring the unconstitutionality of public sector unions extorting money from non-members to support political parties, candidates, and causes they oppose are two more benefits from President Trump’s appointment of originalist Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy provides another opportunity to appoint another justice like the late Antonin Scalia, an originalist who believed that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the Founders in the context of the time in which they were written. I put forward the name of Sen. Ted Cruz.

The most importance consequence of President Trump’s election will the transformation of the Supreme Court and lower courts into conservative and constitutional bastions of freedom. The nomination of Cruz, former attorney general of Texas who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and won, would be another giant step in that direction.

During the transition, among the many somewhat surprising visitors to Trump Tower was Sen. Cruz, a former Trump presidential rival with whom unpleasant commentaries were exchanged. I, too, had serious reservations, as readers may remember, but was won over by actions that mark the most conservative presidency since Reagan, perhaps even more so.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows, but, at the risk of cliché overload, actions speak louder than words. If we have seen anything since November 8, 2016, it is that President Trump has proven more conservative in thought, word, and deed than anyone could have imagined. And more magnanimous in the treatment of his former foes.

Gorsuch was on the list or 21 names Trump had announced for Supreme Court consideration, a list that made most conservatives ecstatic. Ted Cruz’s name was not, although a Cruz ally was on Trump’s short list for SCOTUS. Cruz would make a great second pick -- a constitutional originalist in the Scalia mode.

Trump warned during the campaign that the Second Amendment was under attack, and there was no better defender of the Second Amendment than Ted Cruz. He would be a worthy replacement for the late Justice Scalia, with whom Cruz helped save the Second Amendment in the momentous Heller decision. On Scalia’s passing, Cruz stated:

“As liberals and conservatives alike would agree, through his powerful and persuasive opinions, Justice Scalia fundamentally changed how courts interpret the Constitution and statutes, returning the focus to the original meaning of the text after decades of judicial activism. And he authored some of the most important decisions ever, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized our fundamental right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. He was an unrelenting defender of religious liberty, free speech, federalism, the constitutional separation of powers, and private property rights. All liberty-loving Americans should be in mourning.

What few people know -- and the media won’t remind them -- is that Ted Cruz was a prime mover in getting Heller, in which Scalia wrote the majority opinion, before the Court and decided in favor of gun rights, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and that the word “militia”, as the Founders intended, meant the “whole people” of the United States. If Heller had gone the other way, our gun rights would have been thrown on the ash heap of history. As Cruz told CNN:

I represented 31 states in the Heller case, which upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. You know what Barack Obama's position is? That there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever under the Constitution… Hillary Clinton, for example, has said she will put Supreme Court justices on the court who will overturn Heller. And if Heller is overturned… there were four justices who said that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, that it is only a collective right in the militia, which is fancy lawyer talk for a nonexistent right… [If] Hillary Clinton gets one more Supreme Court justice, what it would mean is, the Supreme Court would say you and I and every individual American have no constitutional right under the Second Amendment at all, and either the federal government or a state government could make it a crime to possess a firearm.

Before endorsing Trump, and perhaps one of the reasons aside from SCOTUS picks, Cruz received support from Trump in fighting the Obama administration’s Internet giveaway that removed it from U.S. control. They are more in agreement than some commentators think. As Politico reported:

Donald Trump's campaign Wednesday criticized the Obama administration's plan to hand oversight of the internet's domain name system to an international body, echoing Sen. Ted Cruz's argument that it could lead to more censorship by countries like Russia and China.

"The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority -- just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him," Trump's national policy director, Stephen Miller, said in a statement published on the campaign's website…

Cruz, who has famously refused to endorse Trump's candidacy, thanked the GOP nominee in a tweet: "Appreciate @realDonaldTrump’s support of our efforts to stop Obama’s Internet handover & keep the #Internet free."

There are those who suggest Cruz would turn down a SCOTUS offer, and that in any event he might have a tough time getting confirmed by fellow senators whose toes he has stepped on. But if he is as unpopular as they say, they just might want to elevate him out of the Senate. Cruz, the argument goes, may not want to be just 1 of 9, but right now he is just 1 of 100. Would he pass up a chance to safeguard the Constitution or a generation or more in favor of having his bills die in committee? I think not. Would the United States and the Constitution be better off with a Justice Cruz? I think so.

https://www.americanthinker.co...e_supreme_court.html

There are so many other highly qualified candidates that it makes very little sense to consider Cruz, or Lee either, no matter how well suited both may seem.

Attention seems to be centering on Brent Kavanaugh of the DC Circuit, Amul Thapar of the 6th Circuit, Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Circuit, Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit, and Raymond Kethledge of the 6th Circuit. Don Willett is getting more mention, but might be too “colorful.”

Whoever it is will endure a gauntlet like nothing ever seen. Every mistake, mean thought, humiliating oopsie, and deviation from saintly perfection will be ferreted out, tested, dissected, exposed.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the victim is found to have said or done impolite things to persons of the opposite sex in their not so long ago youth. Those who received those mean thoughts, words or deeds, and every skeleton in every closet, will be dragged out, introduced to Gloria Redfern, and funded to write tell alls, stories for Vanity Fair and worse.

Even the 12 Apostles have not endured such a test.

quote:

Even the 12 Apostles have not endured such a test.

Clarence Thomas has.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There are so many other highly qualified candidates that it makes very little sense to consider Cruz, or Lee either, no matter how well suited both may seem.

Concur, sir. Keep Cruz in the Senate where he's doing a bang-up job, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Even the 12 Apostles have not endured such a test.

Clarence Thomas has.

As gruesome as it was, I think this will exceed even that.

The sexual harrassment crowd has learned a lot of lessons since then. I think no one anticipated Thomas and his proponents would resist as they did. It caught them a bit flat footed.

Also, attacking full boat a black man, nominated to fill a seat of a black, might have been awkward.

Clarence Thomas: Court is very different without Scalia

I'm sure all the choices will be pretty conservative, but have any had any rulings on the second amendment? Any clues as to where they stand?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There are so many other highly qualified candidates that it makes very little sense to consider Cruz, or Lee either, no matter how well suited both may seem.
<snip>

Yeah. And we thought whoever the Reps chose to replace Sessions would be a shoo-in. The loss of another senate seat would be bad. The Dems would use every dirty trick, including, but not limited to, false accusations.

I seriously doubt either Cruz or Lee are on the real short list. The President may not say it, because he will not benefit from insulting them, but they have about as much a chance of being nominated as Romney had when he was rumored to be the SOS. Fortunately for us, the President takes this very seriously. It would seem against his nature for him to give one of his picks to someone who might go back to being disloyal to him after they have a lifetime appointment.