So where do USMB members stand on this SCJOTUS nomination...

[Coyote]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

Which was also once considered established law. Strict Constitutionalists overturned slavery and women's suffrage. It's a pretty good guide.

 

[Sahba]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

For serving in the Militia perhaps, lol.

 

[Sahba]

I'll wait to see who the left wing vilifies the most. Then I'll know that person is right for America. The real, soon-to-be-great-again America.

Well 'Coyote' gave her begrudging endorsement of Kavinaugh so he's definitely a no go! lol

 

[blastoff]

I like the chick. Seems to be the most Conservative.

If that asshole Obama got to appoint those two extreme far Left shithead dingbats then Trump need to counter with a good solid Conservatives.

Other.

Have my favorite but that matters nothing as it ain’t my call. I simply trust my president to pick a solid conservative who while help keep America the bastion of freedom and liberty our founders intended. And if that jerks the lefties around a bit in coming decades that’s life. Elections have consequences as a not very bright former president once said.

Watching the Leftists maul a Christian woman who has just recently been confirmed 55-43 right before the election would rile up the conservative voting base BIGLY. Watching Leftists demonize 70 million U.S. Catholics right before the election would be YUGE.



The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 31, by a 55-43 vote. Three Democrats voted for her and two did not vote. It would not be easy to justify changing their votes now, as she has served unexceptionably. At her confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s aged ranking Democrat, asked Barrett about her religious views, and the nominee responded that no judge should allow personal views, whether based on faith or anything else, to influence the imposition of the law. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern,” Feinstein said infamously. This was an outrageous comment; Feinstein doesn’t know anything about the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, and she has no idea what privately motivates Judge Barrett.

Nominating Amy Barrett Would Be Political Genius - American Greatness

A conservative woman on SCOTUS would solve many of our political issues. I believe many more women will vote for conservative issues because of her appointment. However, the two men are equally qualified;

Hate to be the one to break astounding news y'all but a SCOTUS judge ain't supposed to look after "conservative" interests, "left" interests, "right" interests or any kind of "religious" interests. They're supposed to enforce the Constitution.

Y'all demonstrated the shortcomings of civics classes, or lack thereof. And/or the pitfalls of partisan hackery.

Those shithead dingbat asshole Moon Bat bitches that Obama appointed sure as hell looks after Libtard interest.

Where were those bitches when they were basing immigration "law: on what Trump said as a candidate rather than what the law really said? The law was nowhere to be found. Just partisan bias.

Quit your bitching. If Obama gets to appoint extreme far Left Moon Bats then Trump can counter that stupidity by appointing Conservatives. Elections have consequences. Probably the main reason why Trump got elected was the potential for multiple Supreme Court replacements.

You didn't address the point at all. If anything you just confirmed it.

I addressed it real well Moon Bats. You just didn't want to accept the truth.

You don't get to apply the standard of appointing judges that will uphold the law when there are Republicans and then get to appoint Left Wing partisan assholes when the Democrats are in power.

Where were you when that asshole Obama appointed those two partisan Moon Bats shitheads who wouldn't know the law if it was engraved on their foreheads.

Maybe Trump would have to go look for very Conservative judges as a counter deterrence if there weren't those for Left Wing assholes on the bench.

It’s pogo. Don’t waste your time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The appointment may be corporation "person hood" friendly, but almost every appointment of judge to SCOTUS have turned out to be slightly right of center to the left of center in the end.

 

[hadit]

Are any of them particularly against medicare? I want them, so that red state populations will vanish.

Becareful on what you wish for. If they go after medicare they will go after your welfare.

Medicare is not welfare. The VA healthcare is though unless wounded in battle.

Nope. It is America's commitment to take care of those who served.

They if not wounded in the war, can get on other health insurance. It like a job now, unless we have a war. I'm not buying it that we need to police the world, playing war games.

It is NEVER like a job. Do you know the airborne expect 7 to 10% of each jump to have those numbers of injuries to the paratroopers. I was on an exercise when 6 or 7 paratroopers were killed by high winds. No other job description has: to kill or capture the enemy and destroy his equipment and material. IOW, we and our opponents were trained daily to mess each other up big time, and the training was tough, dirty, bad. And a lot of it was real fun!

Penelope, you need to think clearly just about what the military does.

It is effing dangerous.

Those who serve, deserve. I have no problem supporting our service members.

 

[hadit]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

Gorsuch turned out to be more swing-voter like Kennedy than Trump thought he would be.

I am guessing that the next one will similarly be a swing voter too.

It's sad that adhering to the Constitution had to be considered "conservative". It should be simply expected.

 

[candycorn]

I’m sure whomever is ultimately appointed will be fine.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

Nor would common sense, lol.

 

[hadit]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

Without those rulings, we would have gotten the ERA passed, arguaby a better result.

 

[Silhouette]

A conservative woman on SCOTUS would solve many of our political issues. I believe many more women will vote for conservative issues because of her appointment.

Totally agree with you.

 

[pismoe]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

You know what I hate?

When I'm in line at der grocery store and somebody butts in front of me.

You know who else I bet hates that?

Merrick Garland.

-------------------------------- yeah [chuckle] feck 'merrick' Pogo !!

 

[Pogo]

Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

Which was also once considered established law. Strict Constitutionalists overturned slavery and women's suffrage. It's a pretty good guide.

Actually those were established by Amendments. Both of them.

 

[Pogo]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

You know what I hate?

When I'm in line at der grocery store and somebody butts in front of me.

You know who else I bet hates that?

Merrick Garland.

-------------------------------- yeah [chuckle] feck 'merrick' Pogo !!

Can you articulate why in a term that the board software won't censor?
I suspect not.

 

[Pogo]

I like the chick. Seems to be the most Conservative.

If that asshole Obama got to appoint those two extreme far Left shithead dingbats then Trump need to counter with a good solid Conservatives.

Other.

Have my favorite but that matters nothing as it ain’t my call. I simply trust my president to pick a solid conservative who while help keep America the bastion of freedom and liberty our founders intended. And if that jerks the lefties around a bit in coming decades that’s life. Elections have consequences as a not very bright former president once said.

Watching the Leftists maul a Christian woman who has just recently been confirmed 55-43 right before the election would rile up the conservative voting base BIGLY. Watching Leftists demonize 70 million U.S. Catholics right before the election would be YUGE.



The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 31, by a 55-43 vote. Three Democrats voted for her and two did not vote. It would not be easy to justify changing their votes now, as she has served unexceptionably. At her confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s aged ranking Democrat, asked Barrett about her religious views, and the nominee responded that no judge should allow personal views, whether based on faith or anything else, to influence the imposition of the law. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern,” Feinstein said infamously. This was an outrageous comment; Feinstein doesn’t know anything about the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, and she has no idea what privately motivates Judge Barrett.

Nominating Amy Barrett Would Be Political Genius - American Greatness

A conservative woman on SCOTUS would solve many of our political issues. I believe many more women will vote for conservative issues because of her appointment. However, the two men are equally qualified;

Hate to be the one to break astounding news y'all but a SCOTUS judge ain't supposed to look after "conservative" interests, "left" interests, "right" interests or any kind of "religious" interests. They're supposed to enforce the Constitution.

Y'all demonstrated the shortcomings of civics classes, or lack thereof. And/or the pitfalls of partisan hackery.

Those shithead dingbat asshole Moon Bat bitches that Obama appointed sure as hell looks after Libtard interest.

Where were those bitches when they were basing immigration "law: on what Trump said as a candidate rather than what the law really said? The law was nowhere to be found. Just partisan bias.

Quit your bitching. If Obama gets to appoint extreme far Left Moon Bats then Trump can counter that stupidity by appointing Conservatives. Elections have consequences. Probably the main reason why Trump got elected was the potential for multiple Supreme Court replacements.

You didn't address the point at all. If anything you just confirmed it.

I addressed it real well Moon Bats. You just didn't want to accept the truth.

You don't get to apply the standard of appointing judges that will uphold the law when there are Republicans and then get to appoint Left Wing partisan assholes when the Democrats are in power.

Where were you when that asshole Obama appointed those two partisan Moon Bats shitheads who wouldn't know the law if it was engraved on their foreheads.

Why don't you go look up my multitudinous posts on the topic and quote 'em for us all... instead of just pulling it out of your ass as you've done up to this point because you can't be bothered with facts.

Happy huntin'.


Once AGAIN a SCOTUS judge isn't there to be a 'partisan' anything. They're there to be a judge on Constitutional matters, period. And once they're in there they're beholden to nobody but that Constitution.

That's the same thing I've said three times while you continue to

Partisan HACK.

 

[hadit]

The appointment may be corporation "person hood" friendly, but almost every appointment of judge to SCOTUS have turned out to be slightly right of center to the left of center in the end.

As they really should be. The SCOTUS shouldn't be either "right-wing" or "left-wing", but rather adhere to the Constitution.

Now, if that's considered conservative...

 

[pismoe]

Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?

The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick

You know what I hate?

When I'm in line at der grocery store and somebody butts in front of me.

You know who else I bet hates that?

Merrick Garland.

-------------------------------- yeah [chuckle] feck 'merrick' Pogo !!

Can you articulate why in a term that the board software won't censor?
I suspect not.

------------------------------ as i politely said , feck 'merrick garland' Pogo .

 

[hadit]

I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?

A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.

Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.

We disagree on that. Strict constitutionalist would never have given women equal rights.

Which was also once considered established law. Strict Constitutionalists overturned slavery and women's suffrage. It's a pretty good guide.

Actually those were established by Amendments. Both of them.

That's as it should be.

 

[Sahba]

I was wondering why Barrett took a upward trajectory in the polls overt he last 24 hr's (yes I have money on it, lol) Perhaps Orrin hatch's speech yesterday had something to do with it, using the pronouns "her" and "she". here's hoping, lol !!!

A top Republican senator offered a potentially massive clue about the identity of Trump's Supreme Court pick

"Just as he did with Neil Gorsuch, the president has promised to nominate an impartial judge, a wise and seasoned jurist committed to upholding the Constitution at all costs," Hatch wrote. "But no matter the nominee's background or credentials, progressives will do everything they can to paint her as a closet partisan, if not an outright extremist."

He added: "As the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I will fight to keep jurisprudence as the sole focus of our confirmation hearings. And I will devote all my energies to ensuring that we confirm the kind of Supreme Court justice America needs: a justice who says what the law is, not what she wants it to be; a justice who calls balls and strikes instead of swinging for the fences; a justice whose foremost allegiance is to the American people and to the Constitution."