Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'

Ginsburg was 83. Souter is 82.

 

Huh?

Ginsburg was 87.

Ex-Justice David Souter is 81.

What is your point?

 

He should SERIOUSLY consider picking Cuban-American Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa - so we can scream that any Democrat in the Senate, MSM or elsewhere who opposes her is a rich racist and woman-hating misogynist. Millions of times. Every 10th word is either RACIST!!! or MISOGYNIST!!! to anything any Democratic politician or talking head raises.

Anything they say answered with "You're just a woman hating racist!" Doesn't matter the topic or question. "Why do you hate women so much?" "You're racist against Latinos!!!" "Racist! Racism!"

Motivate "Cubans for Trump" in Miami to hold protests etc.

 

Right, I meant Breyer

 

Ginsburg, from a 2016 interview:


Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term
Image
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court in May. In an interview in her chambers on Friday, she chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.Credit...Mike Groll/Associated Press
By Adam Liptak

• July 10, 2016

WASHINGTON — Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

In an interview in her chambers on Friday, Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
Her colleagues have said nothing in public about the presidential campaign or about Mr. Obama’s stalled nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court. But Justice Ginsburg was characteristically forthright, offering an unequivocal endorsement of Judge Garland.
“I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” she said. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague.”

Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.

“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...f-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.amp.html

Now here's the flip-flop. Just before she died, Ginsburg reportedly made a statement to her granddaughter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/18/nation/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reportedly-dictated-statement-her-family-before-her-death/?outputType=amp

Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly told her granddaughter she did not want to be replaced until ‘a new president is installed’
By Christina Prignano Globe Staff,Updated September 18, 2020, 8:27 p.m.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was to not have her vacancy on the Supreme Court filled until after the election, according to NPR, which reported the late justice dictated a statement to her granddaughter in the final days before her death.

News of the statement injects Ginsburg’s voice into what will surely be a fierce partisan battle over the open Supreme Court seat ahead of November’s presidential election.

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg told her granddaughter, Clara Spera, NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported on Friday evening, shortly after news of her death.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

I have little doubt that there are plenty of UNQUALIFIED rightwing women that the wannabe Fascist-in-Chief will choose from and my guess at this point is that it will be Jeanine Pirro or someone of that ilk.

If that is who he picks then there will be more than enough video of her crazy remarks to use against her without dealing with her gender. The same will probably apply with any other similar extremist rightwing choice.

And just a REMINDER that Bush jr did the same thing when he picked an UNQUALIFIED woman to be on the SCOTUS bench.

 

Oh. They will find something, lol.

If its Barrett, they will hammer a woman, and double hammer her faith. I'm curious how well that blows over with women and church goers.

Oh wait. I'm Republican, allow me to rephrase, "that'll piss off the broads & bible thumpers, 'murica"

 

All of the above, except on steroids.

 

I hear Amy Barrett is on the top of the list. As like with anyone of these candidates, they haven't been vetted and nobody knows much about them. However, from what is on wikipedia, it will be hard for Dems to find her unqualified.

What I like: As a catholic, she is apparently against the death penalty. She has continued teaching at the university level, apparently well-liked by the students. She also has 7 children, two of them adopted and one with a disability.

She is less than 50 years old. That will give her decades on the court. You gotta be careful there conservatives, however. You never know if you will get a Trojan horse. If you want a hardliner like Alito, my guess would be that Barrett is not it. Would you want to risk to have someone on the court for decades who might turn on you? Lifelong tenure can bring out things in people that they didn't known even of themselves.

 

Good point because BOTH Souter and Roberts were appointed as "conservatives" and have ruled AGAINST conservative cases.

My primary concern is whether any of these women buy into the extremist evangelical bovine excrement such as the "wall of separation" is only intended to be "one-way" in order to "protect the church FROM the state" but NOT vice versa.

 

And wouldn't you know it, Mary Kay Letourneau is dead.

 

So what? Brett Kavanaugh is plenty qualified and was vetted well. That did not stop the dems from using phony smears against him.

 

Another acting gig for Jussie Smollett.....

 

It is 44 days to the election. The fastest confirmation in modern times was Ginsburg who took 42 days from nomination to confirmation. He can nominate whomever he wants, but if he doesn't win, he is going to see that nomination go the way of Merrick Garland

 

Uhh you do realize even if Trump loses he holds the office until inauguration right?

 

this will be much faster. Trump was smart enough to announce a list some time ago all his names have been vetted

 

The irony is that Kavanaugh has been a consistent vote for them on swing issues since being a justice.

 

Uhh you do realize that the democrats can filibuster any nominee or rules change as to hold up the vote until the new Senate is seated on January 3rd right?

 

That is not only the irony but the proof of the democratic lies. They know abortion is not going away but they use it as a scare tactic to get what they really want - legalization of illegal aliens to vote.

 

Good luck with that. Senators aren't fond of working.

 

dem senators aren’t...but that’s not limited to dems that are senators...that’s true for dems in general

 

Nope!

The GOP nuked the filibuster option for SCOTUS appointees in order to railroad through Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

 

yes the gop followed the dems nuclear option

 

He should have gone a step further and said a black woman. That would set democrats hair on fire

 

Coney-Barrett is said to be the front-runner. She was vetted a few years ago for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrat Senators attacked her Catholic religion, particularly Durbin and Feinstein. Referring to Coney-Barrett's faith, Feinstein said to Coney-Barrett, "...the dogma lives loudly within you and that's a concern." Coney-Barrett stated several times that she believed a judge should recuse herself if her religious belief prevented neutral judgment of a case, but blue Democrats conducted what was essentially a religious test in an attempt to make it seem as though she would not be an impartial judge.

Republicans' choices for justices have tended to be for people who take a literal view of the Constitution. That means that they sometimes offer opinions and vote "with the left". Judges are not supposed to be "left or right" partisans regardless which president selects them, so that is not a bad thing.

However, Democrats have threatened to "pack the bench" by increasing the size of the Supreme Court and have Democrat selections as the majority. It is notable that Democrat justices never seem to vote "with the right" as much as they vote as a partisan collective. We have no worries of Trojan Horses with Democrat picks; we know they'll go full bore left, essentially legislating from the bench.

I believe Coney-Barrett would be another fair and impartial choice for the court.