Ginsburg lying in state at SCOTUS statuary hall

**KCJones** · September 19th, 2020, 07:53 PM

RBG is still dead...

**Justin///M** · September 19th, 2020, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by philadelphia patriot

Did Trump nominate Amy Coney Barrett yet? Hopefully he does by close of business Monday.

My money is on Barbara Lagoa.

**KCJones** · September 19th, 2020, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI

My money is on Barbara Lagoa.

Yep. Me too.

If there was an african-american circuit conservative female judge, my money would be on her. But there isn't.

So failing that, my money is on the cuban-american female circuit court judge. Checks a lot of boxes without the Catholic baggage of Amy Coney Barrett. I like her but the simple truth is they're gonna bludgeon her with that during confirmation. I don't think she's confirmable.

Whatever my personal feelings on the matter (If I can't have Ted Cruz as POTUS, I want him on SCOTUS), from a political standpoint Trump's best bet is to nominate someone who 'checks' as many 'boxes' as possible and is thus the hardest for the Dems to oppose in the senate.

**Justin///M** · September 19th, 2020, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by KCJones

Yep. Me too.

If there was an african-american circuit conservative female judge, my money would be on her. But there isn't.

So failing that, my money is on the cuban-american female circuit court judge. Checks a lot of boxes without the Catholic baggage of Amy Coney Barrett. I like her but the simple truth is they're gonna bludgeon her with that during confirmation. I don't think she's confirmable.

Whatever my personal feelings on the matter (If I can't have Ted Cruz as POTUS, I want him on SCOTUS), from a political standpoint Trump's best bet is to nominate someone who 'checks' as many 'boxes' as possible and is thus the hardest for the Dems to oppose in the senate.

She was confirmed for her current post 80-15. How they could defend not confirming her now is beyond me.

**Will3212** · September 19th, 2020, 08:09 PM

How is Barbara Lagoa when it comes to the 2nd, especially in terms of semi autos, +10 mags. Etc.

**streaker69** · September 19th, 2020, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI

She was confirmed for her current post 80-15. How they could defend not confirming her now is beyond me.

I heard she touched a teenage boy one time.

**KCJones** · September 19th, 2020, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI

She was confirmed for her current post 80-15. How they could defend not confirming her now is beyond me.

The problem is, frankly, Republicans have been suckers for too long.

We buy into the fallacy of fair play. We do things like approve RBG by a huge majority because "it's about judicial qualification, not politics"

The Dims don't play that. They play politics. They're perfectly happy to take a judge approved by 80-15 margin and make it into a political thing.

Enough is enough. The game is played how it's played. No more bullshit "principle" of it. Play to win. Putting up a judge previously approved 80-15 and saying "WTF problem you got with that?" is EXACTLY how we should be doing it.

**KCJones** · September 19th, 2020, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by streaker69

I heard she touched a teenage boy one time.

I'm opposing her because I was not that teenage boy. I was totally into older women as a teen. I have been neglected.

**streaker69** · September 19th, 2020, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by KCJones

I'm opposing her because I was not that teenage boy. I was totally into older women as a teen. I have been neglected.

I also heard she was a teen at the time.

**Justin///M** · September 19th, 2020, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Will3212

How is Barbara Lagoa when it comes to the 2nd, especially in terms of semi autos, +10 mags. Etc.

I can't find any specific rulings. I'm just assuming she's OK as a conservative justice. However, in her Q&A from Feinstein during her confirmation to her current seat, she said she believes RvW to be "super precedent" and settled law. So some conservatives won't like her because they're under some weird belief that a conservative SCOTUS will over turn RvW.

"7. When Chief Justice Roberts was before the Committee for his nomination, Senator Specter
referred to the history and precedent of the Roe case law as *super-stare decisis.* One
textbook on the law of judicial precedent, co-authored by Justice Gorsuch, refers to Roe v.
Wade as a *super-precedent* because it has survived more than three dozen attempts to
overturn it. (The Law of Judicial Precedent, THOMAS WEST, p. 802 (2016)) The book
explains that *superprecedent* is *precedent that defines the law and its requirements so
effectively that it prevents divergent holdings in later legal decisions on similar facts or
induces disputants to settle their claims without litigation.* (The Law of Judicial Precedent,
THOMAS WEST, p. 802 (2016))

a. Do you agree that Roe v. Wade is *super-stare decisis*? *superprecedent*?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is binding precedent of the Supreme Court and I
would faithfully follow it as I would follow all precedent of the Supreme Court
regardless of whether it is referred to as *super-stare decisis* or *superprecedent.*

b. Is it settled law?

Yes. For lower court judges, all Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973), is settled law. If confirmed, I would faithfully apply this
precedent and all other precedents of the Supreme Court."

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...0to%20QFRs.pdf