She was the best choice last time, and she's the best choice now.
This isn't some squish chosen for demographics or trying to stealth someone in. It's a very smart, very principled person who's been willing to contest the leftist orthodoxies of legal academia from day one. Silbermann+Scalia clerkships should say it all.
Yup, as far as I'm concerned, losing Scalia was huge and losing Ginsberg made it even. Replacing Ginsberg with a strong, or even mild constitutionalist is all gravy.
More like: when the democrats have established a method to successfully postpone a SC nomination for all male nominees, so your options are narrowed to ~50% of the population.
It has nothing to do with that. I really wish the retards on this sub would put on their thinking pants once in a while. The Justice to replace RBG was always going to be a women since RBG herself was a woman. Just like the justice to replace Thomas is guaranteed to be black.
You may not like it, but that's how picks are handled for SCOTUS. Its been this way since at least Thurgood Marshall, and is not going to change any time soon. Before you spill your tendies all over the floor, at least look at her record. She's easily the most strict textualist Justice from among Trump's shortlist. She even puts Scalia to shame.
. The Justice to replace RBG was always going to be a women since RBG herself was a woman.
This right here should be absolutely frightening. It means that a man can be replaced by a woman, but never a woman be replaced by a man. RGB will get her wish of an all female SCOTUS, and it won't even be liberals that do it. Republicans HAVE to stop appeasing the center and left.
Which assertion did you take offense with, the "own the libs" part? Because the rest of your post agrees that only candidates of a matching gender and race are allowed. It's the democrats who have created this unwritten law - why should anyone still play by their rules? They've proven time and time again that they will backpedal, lie and generally do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.
The country was built on Protestant principles, not Catholic. There are too many Catholics as is on the court (there is currently only one Protestant). Unfortunately Protestant groups are almost as subverted as the Catholics.
The problem with Catholics is that they have always had the institutional vice of wanting to matter politically. That makes many of them (especially in leadership) sacrifice on important issues when it comes to saving public face or catering to the zeitgeist of the day. And looking at the current Pope... does indeed not inspire confidence.
Her adoption of Haitian kids is a really good window into her mindset. It shows that she is a trend follower, as adopting super poor foreign black kids was fad for upper middle, and rich white women in the 90's and 00's. Think of Hollywood actresses such as Angeline Jolie. It also shows that she is a virtue signaler, essentially saying "I'm not racist, I adopted a black kid!" As with all virtue signals, it comes from a lack of virtue (as an actually virtuous individual does not need to loudly proclaim that they are virtuous) and a guilty conscience. Finally it shows that she is manipulable by the leftist media.
Upholding an unconstitutional lockdown before a possible SCOTUS nomination is bad enough and a possible Clinton Haitian child connection makes it worse. Then you see full backing from the establishment.
Lagoa doesn't have a very long record on the things most people want too see like 2A and abortion, but it's more solidly conservative and constitutionalist than Barrett's.
Also, between getting Lagoa and DeSantis' recent uncucking, Trump could easily win Florida.
Don't more people think it's weird that the establishment is saying she's been picked with such conviction when Trump delayed it for Saturday rather than say it right away?
It's a confusing situation. Truth is, Trump isn't really picking - the Federalist Society is. We don't know what their conversational back and forth is, so we can't really know what the timetable is.
He has the decision anyway, but establishment organizations like the Federalist Society are certainly trying to make it for him. He's gotten some awful establishment picks, so I'm hoping he realizes that all this "support" was created from a psyop in which many are backing Barrett simply because she was the implied pick regardless of who actually implied that pick (the media).
We'll see tomorrow. We shouldn't worry too much over things of which we have no control and could go any number of ways tomorrow.
They aren't going to try the sexual misconduct route with her. They are going to double down on attacking her faith. The corporate press has already decided that that's the tack they are going to take with her.
The bitch Feinstein already did her level best to make her out to be some kind of jihadi back when she was having her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit.
My guess is that they are going to try and come at her from "inside" the Catholic Church. Look for even the Pope to step in the ring to denounce her. The Church itself is highly politically divided in the US, so they'll pull out all the stops to leverage the left leaning Catholics in this country to speak out against her.
They don't even bother to watch their own show, do they? The people of the just pre-Gilead US would be horrified at abortion; what allowed the revolution was a massive drop in fertility.
What could you get her on that wouldn't be a net loss for the leftist-feminist coalition?
A rape accusation would have the effect of validating male victims - teachers at high risk of a MeToo uprising from men, a possible loss of control there.
Calling her a racist won't work.
All they have is the stupid "last wish" of the dead parasite.
She will get confirmed, unless someone unexpected turns traitor.
Since he decided it had to be a woman, I stopped following the story, but it looks like everyone's prediction was right.
He probably picked Kavanaugh last time to keep her open for this slot. She's far more proven as a principled judicial conservative than he was/is.
He also put the Democrats in quite a pickle.
They can't attack her character while they run a female VP. Especially when she is carrying the corpse of an old white guy on her back.
She was the best choice last time, and she's the best choice now.
This isn't some squish chosen for demographics or trying to stealth someone in. It's a very smart, very principled person who's been willing to contest the leftist orthodoxies of legal academia from day one. Silbermann+Scalia clerkships should say it all.
Yup, as far as I'm concerned, losing Scalia was huge and losing Ginsberg made it even. Replacing Ginsberg with a strong, or even mild constitutionalist is all gravy.
She positively cited Jacobson, though. The precedent for lockdown orders.
When you make a decision that will change the course of american justice for the next several decades based on genitals to own the libs
More like: when the democrats have established a method to successfully postpone a SC nomination for all male nominees, so your options are narrowed to ~50% of the population.
It has nothing to do with that. I really wish the retards on this sub would put on their thinking pants once in a while. The Justice to replace RBG was always going to be a women since RBG herself was a woman. Just like the justice to replace Thomas is guaranteed to be black.
You may not like it, but that's how picks are handled for SCOTUS. Its been this way since at least Thurgood Marshall, and is not going to change any time soon. Before you spill your tendies all over the floor, at least look at her record. She's easily the most strict textualist Justice from among Trump's shortlist. She even puts Scalia to shame.
This right here should be absolutely frightening. It means that a man can be replaced by a woman, but never a woman be replaced by a man. RGB will get her wish of an all female SCOTUS, and it won't even be liberals that do it. Republicans HAVE to stop appeasing the center and left.
Which assertion did you take offense with, the "own the libs" part? Because the rest of your post agrees that only candidates of a matching gender and race are allowed. It's the democrats who have created this unwritten law - why should anyone still play by their rules? They've proven time and time again that they will backpedal, lie and generally do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.
Not too happy about it. She's got 3 strikes as far as I'm concerned. 1. Female, 2. Catholic, 3. poor black kid adoptions. Hard pass.
The country was built on Protestant principles, not Catholic. There are too many Catholics as is on the court (there is currently only one Protestant). Unfortunately Protestant groups are almost as subverted as the Catholics.
The problem with Catholics is that they have always had the institutional vice of wanting to matter politically. That makes many of them (especially in leadership) sacrifice on important issues when it comes to saving public face or catering to the zeitgeist of the day. And looking at the current Pope... does indeed not inspire confidence.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/HXy1g1HF/the-pope-is-coming-to-take-your-/c/
LOL, that's true, but you're still a faggot.
Go back to slide posting on /pol/, faggot
It was guaranteed to be a woman last week, so you were always going to have that first strike.
Her adoption of Haitian kids is a really good window into her mindset. It shows that she is a trend follower, as adopting super poor foreign black kids was fad for upper middle, and rich white women in the 90's and 00's. Think of Hollywood actresses such as Angeline Jolie. It also shows that she is a virtue signaler, essentially saying "I'm not racist, I adopted a black kid!" As with all virtue signals, it comes from a lack of virtue (as an actually virtuous individual does not need to loudly proclaim that they are virtuous) and a guilty conscience. Finally it shows that she is manipulable by the leftist media.
Better be Lagoa. Best choice. Too many media companies are saying it's Barrett, so I'm hoping it was a bad leak.
Yeah I was hoping that is was a red herring to throw them all off. But I don't think Barret will be terrible.
Truth is, we don't have much of a record for any of them. Any of them could be terrible.
Upholding an unconstitutional lockdown before a possible SCOTUS nomination is bad enough and a possible Clinton Haitian child connection makes it worse. Then you see full backing from the establishment.
Lagoa doesn't have a very long record on the things most people want too see like 2A and abortion, but it's more solidly conservative and constitutionalist than Barrett's.
Also, between getting Lagoa and DeSantis' recent uncucking, Trump could easily win Florida.
Don't more people think it's weird that the establishment is saying she's been picked with such conviction when Trump delayed it for Saturday rather than say it right away?
It's a confusing situation. Truth is, Trump isn't really picking - the Federalist Society is. We don't know what their conversational back and forth is, so we can't really know what the timetable is.
I just want the anxiety to end, lol.
He has the decision anyway, but establishment organizations like the Federalist Society are certainly trying to make it for him. He's gotten some awful establishment picks, so I'm hoping he realizes that all this "support" was created from a psyop in which many are backing Barrett simply because she was the implied pick regardless of who actually implied that pick (the media).
We'll see tomorrow. We shouldn't worry too much over things of which we have no control and could go any number of ways tomorrow.
100% friend. As long as Obama, Harris, and Killary, don't get picks, I'm happy.
Should have gone with Lagoa. He'd have taken Florida by storm.
By the way, where are all the blackpills who declared defeat on day 1 when Murkowski first ran her mouth?
Seems like a good choice. Although how soon before some lurid accusation pops up?
They aren't going to try the sexual misconduct route with her. They are going to double down on attacking her faith. The corporate press has already decided that that's the tack they are going to take with her.
The bitch Feinstein already did her level best to make her out to be some kind of jihadi back when she was having her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit.
My guess is that they are going to try and come at her from "inside" the Catholic Church. Look for even the Pope to step in the ring to denounce her. The Church itself is highly politically divided in the US, so they'll pull out all the stops to leverage the left leaning Catholics in this country to speak out against her.
Their current angle is that she was a part of a group that called their female leaders "handmaids."
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/izht3d/the_repugs_will_take_us_back_to_the_worst/
They don't even bother to watch their own show, do they? The people of the just pre-Gilead US would be horrified at abortion; what allowed the revolution was a massive drop in fertility.
Trump's campaign advisors sure hope so.
Won't happen.
What could you get her on that wouldn't be a net loss for the leftist-feminist coalition?
A rape accusation would have the effect of validating male victims - teachers at high risk of a MeToo uprising from men, a possible loss of control there.
Calling her a racist won't work.
All they have is the stupid "last wish" of the dead parasite.
She will get confirmed, unless someone unexpected turns traitor.
Let’s hope