Posted on Jul 2, 2018
2
2
0
The MSM seems to be pushing Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh as the most likely choices for Trump to nominate for Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps they wish to paint him into a corner, by putting him in a bad light if he fails to nominate a woman. The Catholic Judge Barrett was previously evaluated by the most tolerant, objective, (and sanctimonious) Sen. Feinstein as “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
Aside from what the MSM would like, Judge Hardiman remains among the likely candidates. His dissenting opinion in Drake v. Filko, a case concerning New Jersey's “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit, was an eviseration of the majority support of an unconstitutional restriction on 2nd Amendment rights.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121150p.pdf
Aside from what the MSM would like, Judge Hardiman remains among the likely candidates. His dissenting opinion in Drake v. Filko, a case concerning New Jersey's “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit, was an eviseration of the majority support of an unconstitutional restriction on 2nd Amendment rights.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121150p.pdf
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Supreme Court
2nd Amendment Supreme Court
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
No clue. But I don't even care. Instead, I'm looking at the strategy involved in the confirmation/block process.
There's a lot of focus in the news about how Republicans need the votes of Susan Collins, who is adamantly pro-abortion, and whatzername from Alaska who is slightly less adamant. Also mentioned are the Senators in Trump territory who face reelection this November. Will Trump get his nomination confirmed?
Maybe not, but it won't matter, as long as the confirmation vote takes place before the election, which it will, because Republicans are in the majority and control the calendar. If the nominee is confirmed, great. If the nominee is blocked, then that will be the biggest campaign issue going into the election. And it will spell doom for many of those red-state Democrats who voted to block. Republicans will pick up several seats in the Senate. And then, they won't need Susan Collins' vote. This is actually what I'm hoping happens. Then Trump will nominate another conservative Justice who will easily be confirmed.
Watch for liberal whining about not placing a new Justice during an election year. The comparison of election years is like comparing apples to elephants, because this is a mid-term election year, not a lame-duck President year, and Democrats know it -- they're just using every argument they can think of, regardless of how illegitimate or silly it is. They're still butt-hurt about Merrick Garland not getting a confirmation vote. Wah. Republicans held the majority, and as Obama once said, elections have consequences. The Senate's role is to advise and consent, and obviously, they didn't consent. I have no sympathy at all for their position. It was a dirty trick by Republicans... finally! After decades of dirty tricks by Democrats, it was good to see Republicans fighting back for a change. Think of it as revenge for Bork.
By the way, speaking of Democrat dirty tricks, Clarence Thomas is 70. I think he might be watching with interest to see how this next confirmation goes. And if it goes smoothly, and the new Justice is a solid conservative constitutionalist, Thomas might just conclude that SCOTUS is in good hands with Trump and step down early next year. Ginsberg is 85 and Breyer is almost 80, so we might see a replacement for them as well in the not too distant future. I doubt they'll retire voluntarily during Trump's first term, but how cool would that be for Trump to get FIVE Supreme Court Justices in his first term? But if not, Trump's reelection will convince both of them that they're not going to get to see a Democrat President pick their replacements, and I think they'll call it a career. Especially, if Thomas retires and one of the others dies, the one remaining geezer will probably decide to spend some more time with the grandkids.
Maj John Bell, Capt Jeff S., Cpl (Join to see), SGT Jim Arnold, SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth, LT Brad McInnis, Sgt Randy Wilber, CW3 Harvey K., 1stSgt Glenn Brackin, SPC Robert Coventry, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, SGT Gregory Lawritson, SP5 Mark Kuzinski, PO3 John Wagner, TSgt David L.
There's a lot of focus in the news about how Republicans need the votes of Susan Collins, who is adamantly pro-abortion, and whatzername from Alaska who is slightly less adamant. Also mentioned are the Senators in Trump territory who face reelection this November. Will Trump get his nomination confirmed?
Maybe not, but it won't matter, as long as the confirmation vote takes place before the election, which it will, because Republicans are in the majority and control the calendar. If the nominee is confirmed, great. If the nominee is blocked, then that will be the biggest campaign issue going into the election. And it will spell doom for many of those red-state Democrats who voted to block. Republicans will pick up several seats in the Senate. And then, they won't need Susan Collins' vote. This is actually what I'm hoping happens. Then Trump will nominate another conservative Justice who will easily be confirmed.
Watch for liberal whining about not placing a new Justice during an election year. The comparison of election years is like comparing apples to elephants, because this is a mid-term election year, not a lame-duck President year, and Democrats know it -- they're just using every argument they can think of, regardless of how illegitimate or silly it is. They're still butt-hurt about Merrick Garland not getting a confirmation vote. Wah. Republicans held the majority, and as Obama once said, elections have consequences. The Senate's role is to advise and consent, and obviously, they didn't consent. I have no sympathy at all for their position. It was a dirty trick by Republicans... finally! After decades of dirty tricks by Democrats, it was good to see Republicans fighting back for a change. Think of it as revenge for Bork.
By the way, speaking of Democrat dirty tricks, Clarence Thomas is 70. I think he might be watching with interest to see how this next confirmation goes. And if it goes smoothly, and the new Justice is a solid conservative constitutionalist, Thomas might just conclude that SCOTUS is in good hands with Trump and step down early next year. Ginsberg is 85 and Breyer is almost 80, so we might see a replacement for them as well in the not too distant future. I doubt they'll retire voluntarily during Trump's first term, but how cool would that be for Trump to get FIVE Supreme Court Justices in his first term? But if not, Trump's reelection will convince both of them that they're not going to get to see a Democrat President pick their replacements, and I think they'll call it a career. Especially, if Thomas retires and one of the others dies, the one remaining geezer will probably decide to spend some more time with the grandkids.
Maj John Bell, Capt Jeff S., Cpl (Join to see), SGT Jim Arnold, SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth, LT Brad McInnis, Sgt Randy Wilber, CW3 Harvey K., 1stSgt Glenn Brackin, SPC Robert Coventry, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, SGT Gregory Lawritson, SP5 Mark Kuzinski, PO3 John Wagner, TSgt David L.
(6)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota is not facing re-election. She is facing unemployment.
That much you can take to the bank.
When 26,000 people show up for a Trump rally in Fargo ND in the middle of the biggest blue toilet in the state then No. she can be counted in the not facing re-election category.
That much you can take to the bank.
When 26,000 people show up for a Trump rally in Fargo ND in the middle of the biggest blue toilet in the state then No. she can be counted in the not facing re-election category.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Great insights.
You have the Dems pegged perfectly with their conflation of "No Supreme Court nominations in an election year!!" to include the midterm elections of a first-term President as the same as Obama's lame duck nomination of Garland.
Can they make their desperation any more blatant?
You have the Dems pegged perfectly with their conflation of "No Supreme Court nominations in an election year!!" to include the midterm elections of a first-term President as the same as Obama's lame duck nomination of Garland.
Can they make their desperation any more blatant?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Without knowing who's on the list, it would not surprise me if President Trump nominated a conservative minority woman, just to take some wind out of the Democrats sails.
(4)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
I would take it a step further than that. Let him nominate a woman minority conservative and let the democrats wind their crazy horns all the way to hell and back.
Broadcasting the message of their truth.
They are not the protectors of the minorities of any stripe which they proclaim themselves to be.
The only thing they plan to protect is their own power and the road to hell.
Broadcasting the message of their truth.
They are not the protectors of the minorities of any stripe which they proclaim themselves to be.
The only thing they plan to protect is their own power and the road to hell.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CW3 Harvey K. - Yes, but times are different. There is growing realization that the DNC doesn't really do much for minorities and that their talk is cheap.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Maj John Bell - Then we can hope they will impale themselves on their own stereotypical expectations that they "own" all minority votes.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google