Republicans would be missing the chance to place a proven 2nd amendment supporting judge to the court. Both Hardiman and Kavanaugh have concrete judicial paper trails supporting gun rights. Barrett has never commented or ruled on a case for us to have a clue about her 2nd amendment views. With either of the two I mentioned we don’t have to just hope they will side to expand gun rights. Her qualifications being she is a attractive female Catholic law professor that Democrats at least pretend to not like. If you favor expanding the protections of the 2nd amendment and/ or a fiscal conservative. You should not want to gamble with Mrs Barrett decisions regarding your rights IMO. She is favored by social conservatives on the pipe dream of repealing Roe v Wade. Which in her own words from 5 years ago. Favored more welfare as the way to discourage abortion. Which would of course be a result of overturning Roe v Wade anyways. https://ndsmcobserver.com/2013/01/law-professor-reflects-on-landmark-case/
The 2nd amendment is fine, its the most protected amendment we have right now. But she is an outspoken Christian and will rule on so many cases in so many positive ways.
The US Senate isn't supposed to ask how a potential Justice would rule on anything specific, but a Republican the Senate Committee could ask the question: "Do you own any firearms, if so have you fired any of them, and if so what firearms have you owned in your lifetime?" That'd likely answer the 2A question.
Trump narrows finalists to two as unconventional fight over Supreme Court begins President Trump has narrowed his potential Supreme Court nominees to two, and both were reportedly called to Washington before he announces his choice Tuesday night in a televised prime-time event at the White House. CNN reported that Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado was already in Washington and that Judge Thomas M. Hardiman was on his way from Pittsburgh. There was no comment from the White House about why both men were needed in the capital, but social media exploded with satirical comparisons to Trump’s television show “The Apprentice” as well as to “The Bachelor.” Gorsuch, 49, and Hardiman, 51, have emerged as Trump’s most likely choices. A third person on the shortlist — Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama — has seen his chances diminish as some Senate Republican leaders have said his confirmation would be difficult. Pryor’s outspokenness about overturning Roe v. Wade and other controversial remarks when he was Alabama’s attorney general made even his confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit a years-long ordeal. By comparison, Gorsuch was confirmed a decade ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver on a voice vote, and Hardiman was approved unanimously by the Senate for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...01b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.e3727118049d
Does anyone else find it extremely bizarre that in a thread named after Ms Barrett's SCOTUS consideration, that rather than the potentiality of her being faced with a challenge to overturn Roe v Wade, a hypothetical about her 2nd amendment views is strangely more paramount? What a strange lot of humans these right-wingers be.
The 2nd amendment is one of the least protected amendments. Contemporary case law regarding it is in its infancy. With the court refusing to hear new cases. Obviously siding with a states right to restrict rights, over a individuals right to exercise them. I live in a bright red state so I’m safe the way it is. Those in blue states not so lucky however. I don’t believe her religion should be held against her. Also shouldn’t be considered a plus IMO just a neutral fact. Her lack of experience and judicial paper trail, is a gamble we shouldn’t make.
I don’t consider myself right wing. Likely more of a social liberal then you are. However, I did refer to Roe V Wade in OP. Called repealing it a pipe dream because it won’t happen.
You don't know that and I mentioned this in another thread. There are ways to affect that decision but their rulings on other issues. They don't necessarily have to address Roe v. Wade. Simply stating in some other case that the 14th amendment applies to children not yet born would render Roe v. Wade moot.
Not the level of confidence as being able to read a actual opinion and knowing it is a improvement. People thought Justice Souter was a conservative he wasn’t even close. Damn near everyone that argues for more controls on here, will say they own a gun and support the 2nd amendment. Lots of room between saying you support the 2nd and actually voting to expand the right.
You know I'm right, that's why the liberals are freaking out that Trump gets another pick. They know that abortion is on the table. America is going to return to values and standards and the Court will ensure that, this has the left scared out of their mind.
You may dream of turning the US into a theocracy, but hypocritical zealots generally don't stick together for too long.
You have nightmares of America turning into a theocracy. I'd say that those are becoming well founded fears right about now.
To actually ban abortion would have to go back to Griswold that was a 7-2 decision. Repealing the right to privacy. As long as a woman’s life being in danger is legal grounds for a abortion. A simple claim to a doctor that the pregnancy made her feel suicidal would be sufficient grounds. The privacy protections would prevent them having to share those records with govts. The idea you point out would require a constitutional amendment. Not a court ruling, that would be worse then legislating from the bench, it would be making constitutional amendments from the bench. The 14th amendment specially states “born”. That wouldn’t be possible IMO.
Judicial review does not require a constitutional amendment, you need an amendment to change the review.
They would need to change the wording of the 14th to make your idea possible. It specifies “Born or Naturalized” I don’t see how any Justice could interpret that how you would want. Would then go from anchor babies to anchor fetuses. If they could somehow pull it off.
I wasn't saying that's how it will happen, it was just a random example of how a secondary judgement could affect Roe v. Wade. It could be any number of things.
It's going to be Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh believes, (and has written articles) that the President should never have to face lawsuits or criminal investigations. That is Trump's primary concern not Abortion. Kavanaugh is a very Conservative Pro Choice Judge.
