President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett For Supreme Court….

“Apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make.” – President Donald J. Trump

THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR THE COURT: Judge Amy Coney Barrett will serve the American people with honor and distinction on the Supreme Court.

* Judge Barrett’s extensive experience as a professor and litigator, record of academic success, and outstanding judicial record make her an excellent choice to serve on the Supreme Court.

+ Judge Barrett is currently serving the American people on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

* Judge Barrett has demonstrated a steadfast dedication to upholding the Constitution as written, and not legislating from the bench.

+ Judge Barrett’s excellent judicial record shows she will protect the rights of Americans and defend the rule of law.

* Judge Barrett’s character and work ethic have earned her awards and bipartisan praise from the legal community.

+ Judge Barrett’s colleagues at Notre Dame Law School signed a letter supporting her 2017 nomination, calling her “a model of the fair, impartial and sympathetic judge.”

+ In 2017, a bipartisan group of law professors – including professors from Harvard and Stanford and other law schools around the country – urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, describing her work as “rigorous, fair-minded, respectful, and constructive.”

+ The American Bar Association rated Judge Barrett as “well qualified” in 2017.

EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: Judge Amy Coney Barrett brings a wealth of experience from her time in private practice, academia, and public service.

* Since 2017, Judge Barrett has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after she was nominated by President Trump and confirmed on a bipartisan vote.

* Judge Barrett was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to sit on the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served from 2010 to 2016.

* After graduating from law school, Judge Barrett clerked for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

* Judge Barrett practiced both trial and appellate litigation in Washington, D.C. at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca, & Lewin, and at Baker Botts.

* Judge Barrett worked for more than 15 years in academia, shaping the next generation of legal minds and supporting the professional development of her students.

PROVEN RECORD OF SUCCESS: Judge Amy Coney Barrett has received numerous awards as a result of her excellence as a legal scholar and professor.

* Judge Barrett graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School and received the Hoynes Prize for achieving the best record in scholarship, deportment, and achievement.

+ At Rhodes College, Judge Barrett graduated with multiple highly respected honors, including induction into Phi Beta Kappa.

* At Notre Dame Law School, she received the John M. Olin Fellowship for aspiring academics and earned a tenure-track faculty position.

+ Judge Barrett was later awarded the Diane & M.O. Miller, II Research Chair in Law.

* Three graduating classes at Notre Dame Law have selected Judge Barrett as the “Distinguished Professor of the Year.”

* Judge Barrett served as a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School.

* Judge Barrett’s scholarly work has been published in several prominent journals, including the Columbia Law Review, Virginia Law Review, and Texas Law Review.

WHITE HOUSE

This entry was posted in Big Government, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Legislation, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

364 Responses to President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett For Supreme Court….

  1. M33 says:

    Lagao next?

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Martin says:

    Now, NO Judiciary Committee hearings. Just a Senate floor vote to confirm.

    We’re watching, Mitch.

    Liked by 27 people

    • trump20162024 says:

      I respectfully disagree. ACB can more than hold her own against the senate commies. Let them all further reveal just how depraved they are by mistreating such an excellent nominee. That will magnify the power of the coming Trump re-election landslide victory.

      Liked by 11 people

      • Martin says:

        There’s nothing that isn’t already known that will be revealed by subjecting this woman, and potentially her family, to another production of the Swamp Circus. Absolutely nothing to gain from it.

        At some point, “no, you will not” has to be said, and meant. One can only hope the will is there.

        Liked by 8 people

        • patriciaweir says:

          Read somewhere on a blog this morning that the plan was for the Dems to boycott the hearings. Great! That childish petulant tactic will reinforce their spoiled brat image and at the same time, eliminate the slanderous bile they typically hurl at Republican nominees. A twofer!!

          Liked by 7 people

        • Fubu says:

          I also respectfully disagree. She’s a big girl and this ain’t her first rodeo. Buck up and let’s show just how depraved the Democrats are. I believe we can do nothing but gain as a result of their BS.

          Justice Kavanaugh went through hell but at the end of the day, the Democrats showed people just how scummy they are and I believe it was a net positive for us. Also, I bet Kavanaugh may have some feelings that, all things being equal, will come back to haunt the Dems. Maybe Judge Barrett will walk away with the same perspective.

          Liked by 6 people

        • David M Kitting says:

          Agreed Martin. Reminds me of a song from awhile back…now I remember…
          ACB. It’s easy as 123. It’s simple as do re mi, ACB, 123….
          Quite simply, ‘The debate is over’.
          Let the memes be free.

          Liked by 1 person

        • borwarrior says:

          2 sides of the coin in a hearing.

          GOP Senate can also highlight her skills and strengths and why she will be an outstanding member of the USSC.

          The Left has nothing besides attacking her religion and look where that got them the first time around during the Circuit court hearing?

          There is more to gain to move forward with a hearing then the downside.

          PDJT knows this!

          Liked by 3 people

      • luke says:

        You both make good points. This is exciting but something we need to understand…..this nomination is a microcosm of the General Election. If we fail to get her thru for some reason it will become a rally cry for leftists. And perhaps a deflation point for us. This is do or die I suspect.

        Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        Barrett has already been through this, and the Court resumes November 1st.

        Liked by 4 people

      • USTerminator says:

        It’s 2020, any crap can happen, will happen. I wouldn’t take any chance. If we can confirm ACB then the sooner is better. We don’t need to play the game of RBG refused to retire so Hillary can replace her. It is a blessing for our side but a very dumb move from the Democrats. Since “she isn’t suppose to lose” fiasco makes “liberal court for decades” to “conservative court for the next 40 years”. So I take the confirmation anytime and bypass all pleasantries.

        Like

      • Janus says:

        ….as long as the vote is held BEFORE November 3rd. They can play Twister in the Senate Chamber for all I care. But Trump MUST have Barrett in place by November 3rd.

        Otherwise, he loses the election and all is lost.

        Like

    • onefunnydog says:

      Yep…they gave up the courtesy of getting a committee hearing with their actions during the Kavanaugh travesty. Besides, they recently vetted and voted on her in 2017.

      There is no benefit in allowing the dems to disparage her and have it broadcast on the MSM outlets.

      Play hardball.

      Liked by 15 people

    • litlbit2 says:

      Imho, next to the Second Coming, will be the day we throw sleazy Mitch out of Washington FOREVER! My only regret the Taxpayers can not seize all his perks, retirement benefits and life long living expenses. But there is still Gitmo(hope)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Bypassing the hearings will hurt Trump and down ballot.

      Like

  3. Eric C. says:

    To all eeyore’s, she’s a million times better than RBG.

    Liked by 27 people

  4. Bar Wind says:

    Michael Avenatti claims that when he was putting himself thru college as a male stripper he met Amy Coney. Avenatti was headlining the Men in Motion Review and Amy put 3 $1 bills in his sock filled g string. When she put the bills in his leather g string she touched little Mike. The incident has traumatized him for decades. He developed a fear of women and ED. Or stuff like that…..

    Liked by 18 people

  5. An says:

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html#

    Here’s the lockdown ruling everyone is talking about whenever ACB is brought up. I’ll let people read it themselves and decide for themselves what to think about it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Kirsty I says:

      Would you be kind enough, for those of the feeble minded among us, to ‘splain it?

      Like

      • It’s a typical example of judicial sophistry, ignoring the spirit of the law and finding a letter of the law to support the position of the judge, which in this is case is that it’s fine for the Governor to strip the Constitutional rights of the citizens as long as they call it an emergency, and if there’s any way to claim the citizen doesn’t have an urgent need to exercise a particular right– for example nobody has an urgent need to go to church– that right can be stripped for an indefinite period.

        Liked by 3 people

        • amjean says:

          You need to read the Illinois constitution; all sorts of craziness
          there.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Newhere says:

          That’s actually not at all what the decision says. In fact it upholds preferential treatment for religious services under the governor’s lockdown orders. The troubling part is the ruling’s reasoning as to why the lockdown measures are Constitutional at all (see my comment below).

          I’m also worried about what this decision portends but it’s important to get it right.

          Liked by 1 person

    • dayallaxeded says:

      I read through it quickly and it looks like a well-reasoned opinion that correctly avoids judicial activism.

      Local elections have consequences–this is the biggest lesson and tragedy of 2020. Governors and Mayors have either made or broken our worlds with their orders. They have “health experts” on staff to support them. Without significant science to counter the “health experts” almost anything these locally elected officials do is within their “police power,” meaning power to act for general public safety within their localities. As long as it’s equally applied and there’s a “reasonable” relationship between the actions and an avowed public safety interest, Feds are mandated to stay out of it. That’s ordinarily a good and conservative thing. Remember, we want limited federal government and even more limited federal judiciary–no “whacktivist” judges, please! I have minor concerns about her backbone on some issues, including death penalty and abortion, but those concerns are, indeed, minor compared with the more important devotion to reading and enforcing the Constitution as it was written.

      Liked by 6 people

      • BV Conservative says:

        It’s hardly good and conservative to uphold a 6 month and counting lockdown not based on science and contrary to decades of best practices in epidemiology, and with exceptions for BLM and Antifa, based on a 1905 vaccine case that had at best a tangential relationship to the facts before the court. This was pure judicial activism. The court decided what result it wanted then made up reasoning to support it. Under established constitutional law, local governments can’t shut down churches and businesses indefinitely based on speculative concerns that everyone knows are political.

        Liked by 4 people

        • amjean says:

          Again, read the Illinois constitution and look at all the
          craziness there. In fact, everyone should look in to their
          own state’s constitution. How do you think these govs
          and mayors are getting away with their draconian orders?

          Like

        • TradeBait says:

          And you “know” they did that, correct? You are certain about the “science”. Please let them know of your expertises so we can put this to an end.

          Like

          • yadent says:

            We the people don’t need to know the ‘science’ but the ‘experts’ are expected to. So far they have been wrong. Their models have been wrong, their testing has been wrong (90% false positives according to the ‘science), their baseless mandates have been wrong where masking/social distancing have NOT DIRECTLY shown ANY decrease in the # of cases, hospitalizations, or deaths when implemented. They have purposely subjected the most vulnerable of society to this virus. They have purposely interfered in the doctor-patient relationship by restricting treatment choices. They have destroyed businesses, caused more deaths than what should have occurred by disrupting non-covid medical care. They have turned traditional epidemiology on it’s head by quarantining the HEALTHY. They have ignored the fact that by CDC’s own numbers, over a quarter of a million Americans have died from influenza and influenza related pneumonia this season (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html). So much for masking and social distancing. Where’s the concern, the outrage over that??? They have done this and more, all based on so-called science and outright LIES. The upholding of the continuance of the ‘mandates’ does deify the true science and abolishes civil liberties based on shady science………

            Like

            • Magabear says:

              The only problem with not posting thru wordpress is that I can’t like posts like this! I’d give it 100 likes if I could. 👍👍👍

              Like

        • Ray Bergman says:

          She was right. The illinois constitution grants these powers. The illinois congress could stop the lockdowns but they chose not too. She followed the constitution.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Contrarymary says:

            The u.s. constitution takes precedence over the illlinois constitution, with “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator”. I expect her to rule according to the u.s. constitution.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Chgonana539 says:

            The way I got the explanation is that her decision was correct-the Rs that wrote the case did not do a good job. We do not have great minded Rs here. They are so brow beaten by the crooked Dems it is pathetic.

            Liked by 1 person

        • lovely says:

          You are advocating for judicial activism. It is not up to the jurist to decide the “science” behind the law. The law must interpreted as written without interpretation of what has been decided (in accordance with the wording of the challenge). To challenge the law in the way in which you think it should be challenged would mean a different writ or challenge would need to be before the court.

          Judge Barrett interpreted the law correctly. Lawfully without prejudice of her faith or her personal thoughts on the “science” of the Chinese Virus.

          Barrett knows that the science behind the law of Roe V Wade is faulty. When the appeal case comes before SCOTUS you can bet your ass that it will be worded in a way that will attack the faulty science behind the ruling and that Barrett will rule on the science and constitutionality of killing human life in the womb. This is what we need.

          Roe v Wade will be challenged under its inconsistency with the Declaration of Independence which declares the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to every individual which are endowed by our creator. It will be a brutal battle but an easy argument to make that without the protection of Life in the womb (science has proven the humanity of the zygote, embryo and fetus) the fundamental civil liberties of a class of American citizens is being denied.

          Like

      • Some just have to have their own personal idea of “perfection” at all times. Perfection isn’t even a thing when it comes to people.

        The bottom line is that she isn’t at all RBG, the rotten evil leftist now being absolutely glorified to the point of nausea, and she will be fine in the position.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Contrarymary says:

          No, she could actually be worse. She could be a John Roberts, who pretends to be a constitutionalist and stabs you in the back at the time the country needs someone to defend it.

          Like

      • Newhere says:

        I’d safe it’s a respectably “safe” opinion. Read the PA Stickman decision to see how it can be approached differently. Application of law may be constrained by precedent, but it’s not merely a mechanical exercise.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Newhere says:

      Thanks for posting the decision.

      As I see it, this is the hair-raising statement:

      “At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to EO43 based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty. Like the order designed to combat the smallpox epidemic, EO43 is an order designed to address a serious public‐health crisis.”

      Jacobson is a century-old SCOTUS decision affirming the Constitutionality of forced vaccinations to combat small pox. Subsequently, that decision was a predicate for affirming the Constitutionality of other government measures taken to “protect the public”: forced sterilizations and later Japanese internment.

      Defenders of ACB point out that as an appellate court judge, she is required to follow precedent, and Jacobson remains binding law — even recently cited by Roberts in the context of Covid. They point out that we cannot fairly conclude she would re-affirm the precedent on SCOTUS, where she would have the freedom to over-turn it.

      Critics point out that, unlike the ACB Illinois decision, an appellate judge in PA managed to rule AGAINST draconian Covid measures in his state, in a masterful decision that avoided reliance on Jacobson, in what appears to be a sound ruling (ie, not likely to be over-turned). Critics also point out that with Roberts appearing to embrace Jacobson, that puts him on the side of the liberals and if ACB goes that way too — welcome to our new Medical Tyranny.

      Those worried about ACB (and I put myself in that camp) also take note of a reputation for predictably siding with authority (ie, government or corporate against individual rights). When a judge’s decision can be predicted based on the parties, the strong inference is that they are swayed by who’s in front of them and not solely faithful application of the Constitution. It also worries me that many DC elites that hate Trump are fawning over her, including law professor Noah Feldman, who was one of the “expert witnesses” against Trump in the recent impeachment.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Love me some VSGPDJT…….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. FPCHmom says:

    Liked by 17 people

  8. OffCourseNation says:

    I have checked out some of the left wing sites and they have certainly worked themselves into a rit of fealous jage.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Well that signal’s to me that she is the PERFECT CHOICE!!
      Got get’em Your Honor!

      Liked by 11 people

    • Another Ian says:

      All “Twitter and Bisted” then?

      Liked by 2 people

    • abdiesus says:

      I forwarded this comment to a nephew of mine who will definitely enjoy your “turn of phrase”!

      Liked by 1 person

    • riverelf says:

      Thanks for taking one for the team!
      ACB may have to, coming up, but I doubt she was in Antarctica for the Kav hearings, and she still said yes. Courage counts a lot.

      Liked by 8 people

    • jay says:

      Curiously I Read 30 seconds worth of headlines at MSNBC.
      WTF! Not fake. Vicious lies!

      Liked by 4 people

      • I love it in today’s world of politics:
        The D’s don’t give a damn if it is a bold-faced lie, (with documented proof).
        They just continue the lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and shove it in our faces as if we were complete morons and believe every syllable.
        Then they double-down on the lie and laugh in our faces because we are deplorables and completely stupid.
        At some point in time………..(fill in the blank).

        Liked by 4 people

        • paper doll says:

          “They just continue the lie, lie, lie,….. ”

          Indeed. They actually are faith based….they have faith in their” feelings “, which are of far greater import than mere facts! 😂

          Liked by 2 people

        • hoghead2 says:

          As bad as the Kavanaugh hearings were, this will be much worse. In the alleged communists’ mind, this is for all the marbles; the only sacrament of the left, infanticide, is in grave danger, not to mention a possible conservative majority on the Court. After showing us over and over that the end justifies the means, they’re going to pull out all the stops.

          I’m sure the POTUS team as laid out for the Judge just what to expect, and then to expect it to be even worse. Her hearings in ’17 were a mild jostling compared to what’s coming.

          She knows.

          Liked by 4 people

          • noswamp says:

            If this is the case, I would ask the dems to respect decorum. If they do not and if they start attacking her religion and her family or insulting her personally(stuff like Kavanaugh), I would immediately continue the hearing to written questions and answers. You still have hearings and now you have a justice that has her self respect.

            And then make that the rule for all future hearings. That there is a trip wire to protect judges from personal frivolous attacks played out at CNN and MSM.

            Just my thoughts.

            Like

    • FrankieZee says:

      Wait until they overturn Roe vs Wade. The Liberal loons will commit mass suicide.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “……left wing sites…..have worked themselves into a rit….” No reason to expose her and the nation to this rage in a Hearing. They’re going fire flack at her in the media just as much as they would in a Hearing. She is directly ‘over target’ and they are firing missiles at her already. They will be calling her an ex-pole dancer at strip clubs………3, 2 , 1.

      Like

  9. I can’t imagine Judge Amy Coney Barrett whining that she suffers from “low-grade depression” for which President Trump is partly to blame, even after going through the Depravity Party gauntlet/meat grinder on her way to being confirmed at as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

    How depressed would former First Lady Michelle Obama be if her husband’s political adversaries splashed nude photos of her in the tabloid media in the lead-up to the 2008 Presidential election, rather than feature her high-tone visage on the cover of major women’s magazine every month for eight years. Indeed, the first time she allows herself to be photographed for the first time with a near-natural Afro hairstyle, it’s associated with a sob story about … depression. Analyze THAT.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Joe Collins says:

    We should be praying for ACB, for strength and wisdom. She will be put through the fire.

    Liked by 10 people

  11. dayallaxeded says:

    Metairie, LA is on the map! Harry Lee would be so proud! https://vimeo.com/11882134

    Liked by 1 person

  12. NJF says:

    What a day!

    Liked by 18 people

  13. Peoria Jones says:

    Best wishes to her, and I hope she will serve our nation well.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. OffCourseNation says:

    This is all fine and dandy, but is she 1 / 1,024th American Indian? Did she ever get arrested trying to break Nelson Mandela out of prison? Have any of her sons ever made their fortune in China or Ukraine? I didn’t think so. She would never make it in this world as a Democrat.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. swampfox999 says:

    Ladies and Gentleman,

    Introducing the Indomitable ACB.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Waymore says:

    Lordy, even Wolf Blitzer was impressed.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Sandalwood111 says:

    Impressive in all aspects. Was happy Amy’s comments began by paying respects to RBG by saying the flag was still at half mast. She put that to rest and delivered her comments to perfection.

    As always, our Beloved President was-first class in every way. Was happy that Mrs. Scalia and Secretary Eugene Scalia were there. Always happy to honor Justice Antonin Scalia and his service and his memory on these occasions.

    We are all counting on Senator Lindsey Graham to ensure that the hearings are respectful.

    The Nation is watching. May God bless the United States of America and its people.

    Liked by 5 people

  18. ohnoyoudonot says:

    Liked by 10 people

  19. swampfox999 says:

    Is it me or do Republican women look a heck of a lot better than democrat females?

    Liked by 14 people

  20. Blind no Longer says:

    My most sincere prayer is she rules like Justice Clarence Thomas, since he has almost never disappointed me!

    Liked by 5 people

  21. JackB says:

    Amy Coney Barrett has voted 99% of the time from the bench for the state against the individual and for big business against the consumer. She gutted Do Not Call. The oligarchy has now the majority on SCOTUS.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. mariinsc says:

    She didn’t go to Harvard Law. That alone is a point in her favor.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. mariinsc says:

    She didn’t go to Harvard Law. That alone is a point in her favor.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. mariinsc says:

    She didn’t go to Harvard Law. That alone is a point in her favor.

    Like

  25. mariinsc says:

    She didn’t go to Harvard Law. That alone is a point in her favor.

    Like

  26. Chuck says:

    ACB bashing in full force now.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Leon Brozyna says:

    An excellent jurist, I am sure.

    And no doubt, with her academic background, quite familiar with Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. I was looking through my copy and it hit me how bad a shape we are in. This copy is abridged to a single volume for use in colleges and high schools.

    High schools? I doubt most high school students these days have enough of a command of the english language to comprehend even the simplest discussions in this tome.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Blind no Longer says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • albertus magnus says:

      It is so great to see an evangelical leader endorse this wonderful conservative, prolife, Christ-centered woman for SCOTUS when her only opposition seems to be coming from DEMS and a relative few butt-hurt evangelicals who are ticked off because they didnt get a “bone thrown their way”.

      Anti-Catholic bigots, abortion supporters and the usual assortment of leftwing nuts and socialists are the ones leading opposition to her nomination and confirmation.

      God bless PDJT for working to restore a reverence for God, faith and LIFE to this country!

      Liked by 2 people

  29. puca58 says:

    Supremely qualified! Seems to be one of those rare individuals that everyone likes & wants to call friend. The thing that caught my ear & made me smile listening to her speech, “I clerked for Justice Scalia; his judicial philosophy, is my judicial philosophy too.”

    Liked by 3 people

  30. TarsTarkas says:

    The art of the deal is the art of the possible. ACB also has been through a tough confirmation hearing where her faith was viciously questioned. Lagoa has not.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. preptodef says:

    I really don’t care how she voted. I care only how she interpreted the facts.

    Like

  32. FPCHmom says:

    Liked by 6 people

  33. sync says:

    Bill Maher on Amy Barrett

    “We’ll be saying this name a lot, I’m sure, because she’s a f—ing nut,” he said.

    “Religion. I was right about that one too,” he continued. “Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic. Really Catholic, I mean really, really Catholic. Like speaking in tongues. Like she doesn’t believe in condoms which she has in common with Trump because he doesn’t either. I remember that from Stormy Daniels.”

    https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-says-amy-coney-barrett-is-a-f-ing-nut/

    Maher’s source of leftists’ talking points:
    ( Heidi Schlumpf. She’s the executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter )

    “Coral Anika Theill was a People of Praise member for five years, from 1979 to 1984, after being forced to join the organization by her then-husband. She documented her experience in her memoir titled Bonsheá: Making Light of the Dark.”

    Source articles:

    “Who Is Amy Barrett? Front-Runner to Replace RBG Is Anti-Abortion Member of Patriarchal Catholic Group”

    https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/heidi_schlumpf_amy_coney_barrett

    “People of Praise: Former Member of Group Tied to SCOTUS Front-Runner Amy Barrett Calls It a “Cult”

    https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/coral_anika_theill_people_of_praise

    Like

  34. FPCHmom says:

    So many great memes –

    Liked by 1 person

  35. TradeBait says:

    ACB for the win. Can’t get enough winning. Thank you, PDT. I agree – the most important thing a POTUS can do is fill judicial seats, especially on the SC. Now let’s get the scum arrested and win the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. formerbruin says:

    What is wrong with some of the folks here. Jeez. You get a pretty solid strict constructionist and you’re upset. This is what’s wrong with R’s and Conservatives, you all demand purity. You can’t be supportive without essentially undercutting or finding fault (talking to you Ben Shapiro too). Who do you think Jeb! would have nominated – Merrick Garland to get along, of course. Go vote for Biden, then.

    Liked by 4 people

    • formerbruin says:

      And a further thought – this pretty much checkmates Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to vote and vote Yes. Anything else, and Susan loses all R women, so she’ll be toast. And Gov. Sarah Palin licking her chops to go after Murky if she votes against 2 of President Trump’s nominees.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Blind no Longer says:

      I think the fear is what usually happens with any pick. That they won’t rule as they have portrayed to people they will. I have read the objections of folks here and Robert Barnes, and the truth is, we just never know.
      All I know is she said she loves the United States and the Constitution…so I’m going to take that as she will vote/rule to “keep America America”…and that’s what is most important to me right now.

      Liked by 1 person

    • regitiger says:

      no see…the issue is that the radicals have serious firepower in the courts nnand these judges aren’t weak to show the agenda they support.

      we arent looking for perfection.

      we are looking for warrior judges… because that’s what its going to take to actual start catching up!!!

      my personal gripe is the moment that RGB died… bang..it HAS TO BE A WOMAN

      look I’ve got zero qualms with women. none. ever. period.

      but this NEED to establish gender identity… diversity…is a secondary…no ..a very low priority.

      what we NEED is the best most qualified.

      starting out of the gate with gotta be a woman is infuriating…it makes a.joke out of the selection process.

      and no I’m.no dinosaur!!!

      what I would prefer is a HOST of candidates reviewed…are we even doing that?

      this is wrong…this is the wrong way to select a judge for the most crucial moment in decades!!!

      there is time to get this right… but right now I’m not excited about this.

      AT
      ALL

      Like

      • ILOT says:

        Reg
        I recall pdjt giving strong consideration to Judge Barrett along with Judge Kavanaugh. Pdjt as I understand it made the decision to put forth Kavanaugh. If politics are played, no better time than to replace a left wing activist woman like RBG with a conservative woman. My guess is pdjt reserved Judge Barrett for this specific appointment. I’m not big on the identity politics but feel this was a great move politically. Biden is the one upping the ante with Harris and now saying he’d appoint a black woman as SC justice; now that’s pandering.

        Like

        • regitiger says:

          I’m open-minded to the reality of politics in this…i get that… I respect it… it’s necessary.

          but…one can deliver political advantages AND chew gum at the same time.

          whether this was steered by a process a year ago isn’t addressing the root issue.

          it DOES have that biden goes black (really?) woman component…

          we can pretend it isn’t the same thing…political optics for an election…but.there it is.

          I’m not impressed… I’m more than dissapointed.

          and then there are THE CRUCIAL MARKERS about this nominee.

          look at the record carefully…closely.. inspect it like you would a potential contract…one that will last a very.long time… and no do overs.

          those markers do not inspire confidence on MANY issues…not the least of which is covif rules…

          see the radicals KNOW.HOW TO MOVE THE NEEDLE. so called constitutional originalists (and frankly I’m persuaded that Amy is not one)..end up writing great.dissents..but haven’t.moved.the needle in a very.long time. there is a reason for that…”our” judges dont.know.how.to battle…plain and.simple.

          i think she sounds like a wonderful person.. handsome resume…uber.achiever.

          but those.markers…when it matters the most…

          there IS a pattern.

          i think it is important we.have a full court in advance.of.the.predictable election crisis…no doubt.

          but after that…lots of very.crucially important cases to be heard…

          abortion
          fincen gate
          fisa
          assange
          flynn

          just to name a few

          I’m.not feeling.good.about THAT.

          Like

    • Linda K. says:

      Who would be on the Court today if Hillary had won? Kagen and Sotomayor were Obama’s picks and they seem barely competent.

      Like

  37. Mike in a Truck says:

    Listen you spineless weak kneed jelly nuts Senate Repubs.If you do nothing else this year VOTE her in. This week. No hearing,no reaching across the aisle, no debates.No witnesses. You are up against demonic forces. Time to get ruthless. They will be with YOU.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Just watched Sen Graham with Judge Jeanine, and was not pleased with what he said. Committee hearings will begin on Oct 12, and they hope to get her out of committee by the 26th.

      I nearly threw a shoe at the TV when I heard that.

      As if that wasn’t bad enough, when JJ asked about final confirmation vote, he threw it back to Turtle. Earlier this week on Hannity, he was adamant that Judge Barrett would be confirmed by Election Day. Mitch, on the other hand, has repeatedly said that she will be confirmed “this year”.

      I can already hear the Dems demanding something (investigation into adoption?), which will take more time, which will be granted, which will push back the final vote. Count on it.

      This is not over by a long shot.

      Like

  38. sync says:

    January 2018, cover story of the National Law Journal. It was titled The Great Reshaping: How the Trump Administration is Changing the Game on Judicial Nominations. And it depicted portraits of then-Justice Gorsuch, and Judges Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Willett.

    https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/01/02/the-great-reshaping-how-trump-is-changing-the-game-on-judicial-nominations/

    I have nothing but disdain for Gorsuch since he changed the definition of sex to include “genda identity” in an employment law case. He did so mocking the Congress of 1964 stating that they lacked “imagination”

    Gorsuchs’ decision will greatly effect our nation in years to come in ways unpredictable right now and will certainly up end the definition of sex in an upcoming Title 9 case.

    Years ago, Scalia criticized the court for overturning a Texas sodomy law.

    “In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:”

    “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

    “He further argued”:

    “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’

    Liked by 1 person

  39. tuebor says:

    She is great on right to life. How is she on the 2nd amendment? There are some bad laws that need overturning in blue states.

    Like

  40. Magabear says:

    If some are wondering why there’s some disappointment amongst some of us here, the late great (and very Catholic) Justice Scalia spoke of the lack of any real diversity on the court back in 2016. Not the phony type of diversity the left whines about, but actual life experience diversity.

    PDJT had a chance to address that concern of Scalia’s. Shame it hasn’t happened.

    “Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination,” he wrote in the dissent.”

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Justice/2016/0217/Scalia-s-unusual-view-of-Supreme-Court-diversity

    Like

    • Katymac says:

      I understand she is a Charismatic Catholic which, in my book is a good thing being an evangelical myself. Also, for diversity, she hails from Norte Dame not Yale or Harvard. Got to trust the President on this one. Be well!

      Liked by 1 person

    • QuiAudetVincit says:

      Gorsuch is Protestant. That’s served the country real well, right?

      Maybe it’s less about religion and more about the person.

      Like

      • Magabear says:

        Gorsuch was raised Catholic but attends his wifes Episcopal church. I’d say he’s quasi-protestant, but certainly not an Evangelical or Baptist.

        Like

    • Contrarymary says:

      Most of the people who risked their lives coming to the new world, were trying to escape religious persecution by the Church of England and the Catholic Church. In most of Europe, it was illegal to possess a copy of a Bible. You would be imprisoned or burned at the stake. They wanted to tell you what the Bible said and what it meant. That is why the early settlers were leery of the Catholic Church. In fact, Abraham Lincoln stated that if the Catholic Church were to get a foothold here, it would be the undoing of America. When the head of a church declares himself to stand in the stead of Christ on earth and when people laud him, bow to him, kiss his feet and ring and worship him, there is a problem. When he has the power of your eternal damnation, the question is, will she stand up to that? Is her relationship with God or with the Church/pope?

      Look at the Obamacare mandates. Many, many catholic medical centers getting money from the government. How many illegals are Catholic and the pope wants them to be able to walk over our borders and be supported by the taxpayers. Will she stand up for our country or the pope? This isn’t anti catholic bigotry, they are very real concerns.

      Like

      • Magabear says:

        I should add that I’m not blaming Catholics for advocating for other Catholics to be put on the Courts. I am beyond disappointed with organizations that promote themselves as Evangelical groups that rarely if ever promote other Evangelicals to positions of power.

        On all of the Fox shows and radio shows I listen too, not once did any host or guest mention anyone besides ACB and Lagoa for the Court. It was a phony two horse race right from the beginning and there was no one making the case for some of the other ladies on the list. No segments profiling any of them.

        Until we start getting Evangelical organizations that stop the go along to get along schtick, we’ll keep watching things from outside the window.

        Like

        • CountryClassVulgarian says:

          Hubby feels the same way you do about the absence of Evangelicals on the Court.

          Like

        • Contrarymary says:

          When guilliani dropped out of the race and threw his support behind McCain, it was said,”we finally got the Christian Right out of the Republican Party. That was the goal and they have accomplished it. Look what McConnell and the rnc did to the honorable Judge Roy Moore. Gloria Allred, the flaming communist opportunist, trot these bimbos out accusing Judge Moore of salacious things and the whole rino establishment called these accusers “credible”. I haven’t been able to look or listen to judge Jeanine, Laura Ingraham, or Sean hannity since they did that to a constitution loving, Bible reading/believing man, who stood up for both. As an aside, they are all 3 Catholics. As they are purging our society of the Bible and Christianity, they are purging our government of independent Bible reading/believing Protestant, that this country was founded on. Just like not all Protestants are true followers of Yeshua, I do believe there are some Catholics who are.

          Like

          • Magabear says:

            You bring up a good point that just about every top Fox personality is Catholic. Nothing wrong with that, but again, Evangelicals have no presence in the media that influences decision makers. Fox made it a ACB or Lagoa contest and not one host or even guest from what I heard ever challanged that pretext or advocated for any of the other highly qualified women on PDJT’s list. Sadly not even Huckabee.

            Like

  41. regitiger says:

    FOUR questions

    a. is there a constitutional statue that allows the fisa program to operate secretly AND to violate the 4th amendment rights of us citizens? is the current spy power aimed at us citizens constitutional at all?

    b. where do you stand on science as relates to life as a human being? when does life begin consistent with scientific observation? in the womb…?

    c. can a federal judge be sued directly by a defendant for unlawful abuse of power, miscarriage of justice, willful stalling to decide on a motion to dismiss a case when the prosecutor has left the field, promoting conspiracy theories on the bench, and persecuting a victim with a political agenda? if not, what are the swift actions that the supreme Court CAN DO right now to end this kangaroo court

    4. coke or pepsi?

    Like

  42. Troublemaker10 says:

    Like

  43. TonyEuropa says:

    Clerked for Scalia?

    Appointed and reviewed just three years ago?

    No need for a Committee… just have an up and down vote on the Senate Chamber.

    Sure, MIttens may object to a Catholic, but he’s “sort of” a Mormon… most of the time he’s a Globalist Atheist.

    Liked by 4 people

  44. Justin Green says:

    Just a reminder: Mittens Romney is still a moral degenerate.

    Like

  45. Justin Green says:

    Just a reminder: Mittens Romney is still a moral degenerate.

    Like

  46. flatlandgoober says:

    The largest bonus here. Confirmation hearings will spend the remaining time before the election reminding voters why the Left is so EVIL. .

    Liked by 1 person

    • regitiger says:

      that’s a pleasant dream…these corruptors have no plans to suspend anarchy. it will come from every angle. buckle up.

      bill barr: wake up and start moving chessb pieces.. if you really operate as AG for the people, its time to start clearing the field BEFORE coup 2.1.0 is activated.

      a few indictments would be very wise.

      NOW!

      Like

  47. rharkonen says:

    Hmm, I deal with lots of high-achievers; multiple degrees including more than one Ph.D … or get a Ph.D in physics, then an M.D., and a J.D., cranking out textbooks, international authorities in high demand, masters of the universe, etc.

    There aren’t enough hours in the day, so something has to give. Housekeepers to cook and clean, nannies to help with kids (and usually no kids), and almost always not enough time spent on the spouse, so troubled marriages and divorces.

    So it becomes curious that, in her case, absolutely nothing appears to give.

    Almost to the point of extravagance: Five kids is not enough … have to adopt … and adopting isn’t enough … have to adopt interracially …. from a foreign country … twice. While cooking, homeschooling, fine marriage, and career as “top legal mind” on the current scene (what is everyone else doing with their time)?

    Many of these things are at cross purposes; if you are interested in one of them, the other issues seem less important.

    i.e., if you are interested enough to have 7 kids, spending time on a law career starts to seem pretty silly and unimportant, maybe only to pay the bills. Or if you are fired-up enough to excel in a career, the slower pace and subleties of raising a family might seem slow and tedious with no immediate pay-off.

    So to go to such extravagant extremes in contrary activities is puzzling. Monomanical resume building off the chart. A Wonder Woman, but it makes you wonder what is going on. Its like 1+1+1 = 9 (something’s missing … what are we missing?)

    Like

  48. Richie says:

    Pelosi is a “Constitutionalist” too. See…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s