Count me in the ACB camp. I want another Scalia. If cloning a duplicate were possible, I'd put his at top of the list. And I am tired of being disappointed with "just ok" picks from the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/trump-barrett-lagoa-supreme-court-420045

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's looming Supreme Court decision is dividing the president's political orbit between the pragmatists and the purists.

One camp is dominated by the GOP operative class overseeing the party's electoral efforts, including the president's own campaign advisers and donors. The imperative is to do anything possible to win the election, and Barbara Lagoa would be an undeniable boon, they say: a Florida-based, Cuban-American jurist from a must-win state, who might also help the president in Hispanic-heavy Arizona and Nevada.

The other, led by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, consists of religious and movement conservatives. They want a can't-miss pick someone who carries the lowest possible risk of becoming the next John Roberts or, worse, David Souter. The obvious choice to them is Amy Coney Barrett, an acolyte of former Justice Antonin Scalia who's been groomed for decades to ascend to the high court and is seen as having the inside track.

---

I'm fine with either

One of ACBs recent rulings:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747

A federal appeals court has turned down the Illinois Republican Party's bid to block a coronavirus-related lockdown order in that state that limits political gatherings and most other in-person events to no more than 50 people.
A three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees unanimously rejected the state GOP's request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order issued by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.
Lawyers for the Republican Party argued that Pritzker's decision in June to exempt churches and other religious organizations from the cap undermined the governor's ability to leave that limit in place against political assemblies, which also enjoy special protection under the Constitution.


But the opinion, released Thursday by the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the exemption for religion Pritzker issued under some legal and political pressure from religious groups about two months ago did not foreclose the state's ability to regulate political events as part of efforts to stem spread of the virus.

I'm firmly in the "whatever Trump decides I'll support" camp. I favor a surprise personally, but he's the one that campaigned, risked everything to run for POTUS (and has lost a ton of money as a result), fought off Mueller etc., and has much more information about the candidates than we do.

Not too worried he'll pull some sort of a Souter out of the hat.

Put me down for Scalia in a skirt... ACB for me!

Quote:

---

The other, led by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, consists of religious and movement conservatives. They want a can't-miss pick someone who carries the lowest possible risk of becoming the next John Roberts or, worse, David Souter. The obvious choice to them is Amy Coney Barrett, an acolyte of former Justice Antonin Scalia who's been groomed for decades to ascend to the high court and is seen as having the inside track.

---

There's a good chance this is THE only opportunity to choose ACB. Don't let it pass! Do it for the right reasons. Because she's a sure thing when it comes to judicial integrity. She's worth the political risk that goes with her selection.

All i need to see is who is pushing Lagoa.... The big business establishment wing of the Republican party.

No thanks. She is the one choice from the 5 I have seen mentioned as being considered that I am strongly against.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

---

Sold, American!

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

She does have kids

What about being nominated by DeSantis and Trump?

Sarge 91 said:

---

I just don't think BLs nomination would help deliver Florida for Trump, as some have argued.

---

As a Florida resident... Yeah, I have a hard time seeing that too. Best case it gets a few conservatives in south Florida to actually vote instead of staying home. Doesn't change anyone's vote.

BigBrother said:

---

One of ACBs recent rulings:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747

A federal appeals court has turned down the Illinois Republican Party's bid to block a coronavirus-related lockdown order in that state that limits political gatherings and most other in-person events to no more than 50 people.
A three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees unanimously rejected the state GOP's request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order issued by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.
Lawyers for the Republican Party argued that Pritzker's decision in June to exempt churches and other religious organizations from the cap undermined the governor's ability to leave that limit in place against political assemblies, which also enjoy special protection under the Constitution.


But the opinion, released Thursday by the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the exemption for religion Pritzker issued under some legal and political pressure from religious groups about two months ago did not foreclose the state's ability to regulate political events as part of efforts to stem spread of the virus.

---

Pretty sure this is just following what the Supreme Court ruled. Can't knock her for following the precedent of the superior court. That how our system is supposed to work.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

Might want to tell her three daughters that she isn't their mom...

---

Not sure how I missed that. I read somewhere that she had no children and didn't follow up. I stand corrected. Apologies. I still pick ACB for her Scalia ties.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

Might want to tell her three daughters that she isn't their mom...

---

Not sure how I missed that. I read somewhere that she had no children and didn't follow up. I stand corrected. Apologies. I still pick ACB for her Scalia ties.

---

Not sure why not having kids would be a red flag anyway. Her legal opinions should be the focus not her family. I couldn't care less what she does in her personal Life.

SirLurksALot said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

Might want to tell her three daughters that she isn't their mom...

---

Not sure how I missed that. I read somewhere that she had no children and didn't follow up. I stand corrected. Apologies. I still pick ACB for her Scalia ties.

---

Not sure why not having kids would be a red flag anyway. Her legal opinions should be the focus not her family. I couldn't care less what she does in her personal Life.

---

That's your opinion. I have mine. It's a red flag for me.

He has no plans to meet with Babs as of right now

He's going to choose ACB

valvemonkey91 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

Might want to tell her three daughters that she isn't their mom...

---

Not sure how I missed that. I read somewhere that she had no children and didn't follow up. I stand corrected. Apologies. I still pick ACB for her Scalia ties.

---

Not sure why not having kids would be a red flag anyway. Her legal opinions should be the focus not her family. I couldn't care less what she does in her personal Life.

---

That's your opinion. I have mine. It's a red flag for me.

---

Do you want judges to make decisions based on Constitution Law or based on their personal lives?

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

I just don't think BLs nomination would help deliver Florida for Trump, as some have argued.

---

As a Florida resident... Yeah, I have a hard time seeing that too. Best case it gets a few conservatives in south Florida to actually vote instead of staying home. Doesn't change anyone's vote.

---

Trump pretty much has the Cuban-American vote in S. Florida. This wouldn't swing the vote one way or another

valvemonkey91 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

Might want to tell her three daughters that she isn't their mom...

---

Not sure how I missed that. I read somewhere that she had no children and didn't follow up. I stand corrected. Apologies. I still pick ACB for her Scalia ties.

---

Not sure why not having kids would be a red flag anyway. Her legal opinions should be the focus not her family. I couldn't care less what she does in her personal Life.

---

That's your opinion. I have mine. It's a red flag for me.

---

But irrelevant here.


I'm solidly in the BOTH camp.

Whichever one now is fine by me.

In 2-3 years or less when Breyer retires or meets fate then we get the other one bringing the female total to 4 justices which seems fair and Trump gets lauded (lol... well should anyway) for adding another woman justice.

And when Clarence Thomas does the right thing and retires in term 2 Trump gets to appoint another minority black male conservative.

Bringing Trumps total to FIVE justices nominated in his 2 terms and sealing his legacy as the greatest President in history. Sorry Libs you can suck it. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, Lagoa and TBD will serve for 20-30 more years after Trump is gone.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Roe -a poorly reasoned opinion with monstrous consequences- is your most important issue regarding the SCOTUS, then it cannot hurt to have a member added to the Court who has demonstrated she recognizes the value of motherhood in her own life.

True, life experiences should take a far back seat to the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, Roe is a perfect example of a decision not based on the ROL. It should be jettisoned without delay. It may take a mother to speak convincingly to other members of the Court, who don't value the ROL or are afraid of offending women, on that issue.

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Roe -a poorly reasoned opinion with monstrous consequences- is your most important issue regarding the SCOTUS, then it cannot hurt to have a member added to the Court who has demonstrated she recognizes the value of motherhood in her own life.

True, life experiences should take a far back seat to the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, Roe is a perfect example of a decision not based on the ROL. It should be jettisoned without delay. It may take a mother to speak convincingly to other members of the Court, who don't value the ROL or are afraid of offending women, on that issue.

---

If Roe is your biggest priority regarding a new Justice then we probably won't agree on much in this arena.

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Roe -a poorly reasoned opinion with monstrous consequences- is your most important issue regarding the SCOTUS, then it cannot hurt to have a member added to the Court who has demonstrated she recognizes the value of motherhood in her own life.

True, life experiences should take a far back seat to the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, Roe is a perfect example of a decision not based on the ROL. It should be jettisoned without delay. It may take a mother to speak convincingly to other members of the Court, who don't value the ROL or are afraid of offending women, on that issue.

---

DC Republicans allowed abortions to be federally funded through planned parenthood. Why is Roe being talked about now?

SirLurksALot said:

---

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Roe -a poorly reasoned opinion with monstrous consequences- is your most important issue regarding the SCOTUS, then it cannot hurt to have a member added to the Court who has demonstrated she recognizes the value of motherhood in her own life.

True, life experiences should take a far back seat to the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, Roe is a perfect example of a decision not based on the ROL. It should be jettisoned without delay. It may take a mother to speak convincingly to other members of the Court, who don't value the ROL or are afraid of offending women, on that issue.

---

If Roe is your biggest priority regarding a new Justice then we probably won't agree on much in this arena.

---

Hear hear

All the right people are squealing over ACB.

https://news.yahoo.com/litman-amy-coney-barrett-nominated-100020977.html

Quote:

---

So what might the country get from Justice Barrett? For starters, a monolithic majority of at least five rock-ribbed conservatives on the high court, and a near hammerlock on every important decision on affirmative action, executive power, environmental protection and climate change, states' rights, LGBTQ rights, gun control and, of course, abortion rights, for many, many years to come.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a moderate conservative who emerged last term as a champion of precedent, a swing vote and possibly the most powerful chief since John Marshall, will become almost an afterthought. And the reliably liberal justices? A permanent dissenting minority.

This kind of rebalancing in itself, before any decisions are rendered, will have a huge effect on state legislatures and the courts of appeals. Red states will be ever more emboldened to pass reactionary statutes such as Alabama's attempt last year to make virtually all abortions in the state a felony, subjecting doctors who perform them to up to 99 years in prison knowing that an extreme right-wing Supreme Court has their back.

Barrett has announced her personal "conviction" that "life begins at conception." It is very hard to imagine that she believes Roe vs. Wade was correctly decided. She has written, dubiously, that the high court's reasoning "essentially permitted abortion on demand."

Perhaps more importantly, and less discussed, Barrett, like Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas, has articulated a relatively weak view of stare decisis, or respect for Supreme Court precedent. Roe owes its continued vitality to stare decisis. In her time at Notre Dame, Barrett has made a kind of academic subdiscipline of undermining the doctrine. In four separate articles, she has suggested, among other attacks, that it sometimes violates the due process clause and that it stands in tension with an "originalist" reading of the Constitution.

In confirmation hearings, Barrett would of course advance the now-standard bromides about respect for Roe as a super-duper precedent, but I would expect her to combine with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to achieve the far right's holy grail of overruling Roe.

And that may just be the beginning of the wrecking-ball jurisprudence.

Barrett has to be counted as a likely vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act, which is up for Supreme Court review for the third time in December, and which is another far-right bugaboo. In a 2017 law review article, she trashed Roberts' 2012 decision upholding Obamacare as having pushed the statute "beyond its plausible meaning."

Then there's the 2nd Amendment. In 2019, Barrett voted (in a 7th Circuit dissent) to strike down a law that bars convicted felons from owning guns, saying that the Constitution requires proof that the individual in question is dangerous.

And immigration: She dissented from an opinion striking down a Trump immigration policy denying residency to immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance.

You can see why the Federalist Society loves Barrett and progressive groups fear her. She would complete a Supreme Court supermajority put in place by a Republican Party that has won the popular vote only once in the last seven presidential elections that represents views on an extreme edge of the legal profession.

Barring a miracle, the court Trump is fashioning will be viewed for decades with anxiety and derision by the majority in a society that has traditionally looked to it as the ultimate bulwark against government oppression. That would be a shame for the court, but it will be a catastrophe for Americans whose liberties will be on the chopping block.

---

ACB now.

And then a Trump win.

And then Breyer and Thomas retire.

Replaced by originalist Black woman, Latina woman,

And for the first time in U.S. history the Court is majority female and the most racially diverse and the most conservative in 150 years.

And all the liberal women go:



Dare to dream.

Why do I lean for ACB now

Stephen Breyer - Harvard Law
Neil Gorsuch - Harvard Law
Elena Kagan - Harvard Law
John Roberts - Harvard Law

Samuel Alito - Yale Law
Brett Kavanaugh - Yale Law
Sonia Sotomayor - Yale Law
Clarence Thomas - Yale Law

Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law
Barbara Lagoa Columbia Law

Both are Catholics, better Catholics than I.
I am not a huge fan of ND, but by God put some new blood from new professors on the SCOTUS.
If When Trump wins he can choose the other or another from his fine list of candidates.

That Yahoo article is so full of inaccuracies about the current state of the law I had to do a search to see if he really was a lawyer. Unfortunately, he is.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I posted this on another thread as well.

Amy Coney Barrett vs. Barbara Lagoa. Barrett is a far better choice:

Barrett has a superior resume on all levels. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She has firm religious beliefs, 5 biological children plus 2 adopted, and understands issues related to family. She is 5 years younger and clerked for Scalia. She is described as an "originalist" and a "textualist", her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.

Lagoa's resume is very thin. She has no children which is a big red flag in my opinion. She was originally appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida by Jeb Bush. She can't be trusted to be a lifelong true conservative on the court in my opinion. The fact that she was nominated at one point by Jeb Bush is telling. We do not need another John Roberts.

---

In addition I believe her father in law also worked for or in the Clinton Administration. You can't convince me she wouldn't be getting leaned on from them which might lead her to having a more moderate view or worst becoming another David Souter