She’s Catholic. The DNC are atheists and will throw everything they’ve got against her Catholism
Way to alienate the Hispanic vote who are almost entirely Catholic, DNC
But the Cuban chick is a Cuban chick. That might have appeased the Floridas, but as we’ve seen here on HCH, not everyone can distinguish among the Hispanos, and among those that can, many don’t care. Reasonable amounts.
Picking the non-ethnic conservative, while considering the ethnic one was the smart move.
I’ll note that both selections are out of step with the traditional academic elitism that accompanies SCOTUS appointments. Harvard, Yale and Stanford, undergrad and law school, have traditionally dominated the appointment pools.
The Cuban woman went to Columbia LS, which is up there too and way better than Notre Dame, but went to FIU undergrad, which is very low brow.
Barrett was undergrad at Rhodes College, not exactly a tippy top liberal arts college, and Notre Dame LS, which is not elite. #26 in USNWR, current ranking, is even higher than it’s been historically. It’s not even Georgetown. Top law firms don’t interview there.
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.
That’s essentially what I said.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
Married, female, mother, Catholic, good reputation, highly thought of among the legal crowd, mixed family etc. Appeals across some racial lines due to her religion and adoption. Traditional interpretation of the constitution. Pro life.
Lagoa is married, no less Catholic than Barrett, has three kids, serves on a federal court of appeals, served on the FL SC, and spent time in private practice.
She also made it to the Ivy League with no affirmative action - I know this because she is my age and we attended LS at the same time. I know first hand that the law schools, especially those in the east, don’t consider Cubans as diversity candidates. Dean of admissions at Michigan told me that point blank.
So I ask you again: why does Barrett have broader appeal? They seem like almost the same people. Only real differences are Barrett taught in LS and the Cuban has a better LS pedigree and served in her state’s Supreme Court.
Barrett has a better track record on the 2nd amendment. Good enough for me. Not that Lagoa is bad on it, she just doesn’t have a track record if ruling on it.
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.
Anyway, still would like to know why Barrett has broader appeal. Not everyone is looking for a 2A hawk. And Lagoa is conservative enough that she’d be a pretty safe bet on that one critical issue.
I don’t care about taking away abortions. I don’t want the commiecrats expanding the Supreme Court or adding states to sway things in their favor, and I’m pretty sure either woman would do that, so yes, I’ll take the one with the more proven track record on gun rights. I believe that the 2nd amendment is the most important amendment because it’s the one that gives the populace the teeth to keep the rest of our rights intact.
I want to buy suppressors and put stocks on my “pistols” without paying extra money to the fucking government and going in a highly monitored registry to do it. I’d settle for suppressors and SBRs removed from the NFA, but I won’t complain if they kill the whole thing and put fun switch weapons back on the table.
Good enough for me!
I see what you were getting at. Gotta remember that Hispanics only count as minorities when they have a D next to their name. Lagoa would have been trashed by the dems as a racist no doubt. Hard to do that to the mom of black kids without completely giving away the game.
Also, Lagao's a bit older if she's your age no? All things being equal you take the younger judge who will serve longer.
She’s Catholic. The DNC are atheists and will throw everything they’ve got against her Catholism
Way to alienate the Hispanic vote who are almost entirely Catholic, DNC
But the Cuban chick is a Cuban chick. That might have appeased the Floridas, but as we’ve seen here on HCH, not everyone can distinguish among the Hispanos, and among those that can, many don’t care. Reasonable amounts.
Picking the non-ethnic conservative, while considering the ethnic one was the smart move.
I’ll note that both selections are out of step with the traditional academic elitism that accompanies SCOTUS appointments. Harvard, Yale and Stanford, undergrad and law school, have traditionally dominated the appointment pools.
The Cuban woman went to Columbia LS, which is up there too and way better than Notre Dame, but went to FIU undergrad, which is very low brow.
Barrett was undergrad at Rhodes College, not exactly a tippy top liberal arts college, and Notre Dame LS, which is not elite. #26 in USNWR, current ranking, is even higher than it’s been historically. It’s not even Georgetown. Top law firms don’t interview there.
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.
That’s essentially what I said.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
Married, female, mother, Catholic, good reputation, highly thought of among the legal crowd, mixed family etc. Appeals across some racial lines due to her religion and adoption. Traditional interpretation of the constitution. Pro life.
Lagoa is married, no less Catholic than Barrett, has three kids, serves on a federal court of appeals, served on the FL SC, and spent time in private practice.
She also made it to the Ivy League with no affirmative action - I know this because she is my age and we attended LS at the same time. I know first hand that the law schools, especially those in the east, don’t consider Cubans as diversity candidates. Dean of admissions at Michigan told me that point blank.
So I ask you again: why does Barrett have broader appeal? They seem like almost the same people. Only real differences are Barrett taught in LS and the Cuban has a better LS pedigree and served in her state’s Supreme Court.
Barrett has a better track record on the 2nd amendment. Good enough for me. Not that Lagoa is bad on it, she just doesn’t have a track record if ruling on it.
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.
Anyway, still would like to know why Barrett has broader appeal. Not everyone is looking for a 2A hawk. And Lagoa is conservative enough that she’d be a pretty safe bet on that one critical issue.
I don’t care about taking away abortions. I don’t want the commiecrats expanding the Supreme Court or adding states to sway things in their favor, and I’m pretty sure either woman would do that, so yes, I’ll take the one with the more proven track record on gun rights. I believe that the 2nd amendment is the most important amendment because it’s the one that gives the populace the teeth to keep the rest of our rights intact.
I want to buy suppressors and put stocks on my “pistols” without paying extra money to the fucking government and going in a highly monitored registry to do it. I’d settle for suppressors and SBRs removed from the NFA, but I won’t complain if they kill the whole thing and put fun switch weapons back on the table.
Good enough for me!
I see what you were getting at. Gotta remember that Hispanics only count as minorities when they have a D next to their name. Lagoa would have been trashed by the dems as a racist no doubt. Hard to do that to the mom of black kids without completely giving away the game.
Also, Lagao's a bit older if she's your age no? All things being equal you take the younger judge who will serve longer.
Lagoa is 52, Barrett is 48, basically the same. Trump must feel that Barrett is completely vetted and the easier and more politically advantageous. If Trump wins, Thomas will likely retire and then it’s Lagoa’s time.
She’s Catholic. The DNC are atheists and will throw everything they’ve got against her Catholism
Way to alienate the Hispanic vote who are almost entirely Catholic, DNC
But the Cuban chick is a Cuban chick. That might have appeased the Floridas, but as we’ve seen here on HCH, not everyone can distinguish among the Hispanos, and among those that can, many don’t care. Reasonable amounts.
Picking the non-ethnic conservative, while considering the ethnic one was the smart move.
I’ll note that both selections are out of step with the traditional academic elitism that accompanies SCOTUS appointments. Harvard, Yale and Stanford, undergrad and law school, have traditionally dominated the appointment pools.
The Cuban woman went to Columbia LS, which is up there too and way better than Notre Dame, but went to FIU undergrad, which is very low brow.
Barrett was undergrad at Rhodes College, not exactly a tippy top liberal arts college, and Notre Dame LS, which is not elite. #26 in USNWR, current ranking, is even higher than it’s been historically. It’s not even Georgetown. Top law firms don’t interview there.
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.
That’s essentially what I said.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
Married, female, mother, Catholic, good reputation, highly thought of among the legal crowd, mixed family etc. Appeals across some racial lines due to her religion and adoption. Traditional interpretation of the constitution. Pro life.
Lagoa is married, no less Catholic than Barrett, has three kids, serves on a federal court of appeals, served on the FL SC, and spent time in private practice.
She also made it to the Ivy League with no affirmative action - I know this because she is my age and we attended LS at the same time. I know first hand that the law schools, especially those in the east, don’t consider Cubans as diversity candidates. Dean of admissions at Michigan told me that point blank.
So I ask you again: why does Barrett have broader appeal? They seem like almost the same people. Only real differences are Barrett taught in LS and the Cuban has a better LS pedigree and served in her state’s Supreme Court.
Barrett has a better track record on the 2nd amendment. Good enough for me. Not that Lagoa is bad on it, she just doesn’t have a track record if ruling on it.
Barrett is slam dunk 2A. I love her. Swaye mushroom stamp of approval.
Agreed. When I saw she’d ruled in favor of non-violent felons getting their gun rights back, I knew she was a serious 2A proponent.
She’s Catholic. The DNC are atheists and will throw everything they’ve got against her Catholism
Way to alienate the Hispanic vote who are almost entirely Catholic, DNC
But the Cuban chick is a Cuban chick. That might have appeased the Floridas, but as we’ve seen here on HCH, not everyone can distinguish among the Hispanos, and among those that can, many don’t care. Reasonable amounts.
Picking the non-ethnic conservative, while considering the ethnic one was the smart move.
I’ll note that both selections are out of step with the traditional academic elitism that accompanies SCOTUS appointments. Harvard, Yale and Stanford, undergrad and law school, have traditionally dominated the appointment pools.
The Cuban woman went to Columbia LS, which is up there too and way better than Notre Dame, but went to FIU undergrad, which is very low brow.
Barrett was undergrad at Rhodes College, not exactly a tippy top liberal arts college, and Notre Dame LS, which is not elite. #26 in USNWR, current ranking, is even higher than it’s been historically. It’s not even Georgetown. Top law firms don’t interview there.
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.
That’s essentially what I said.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
Married, female, mother, Catholic, good reputation, highly thought of among the legal crowd, mixed family etc. Appeals across some racial lines due to her religion and adoption. Traditional interpretation of the constitution. Pro life.
Lagoa is married, no less Catholic than Barrett, has three kids, serves on a federal court of appeals, served on the FL SC, and spent time in private practice.
She also made it to the Ivy League with no affirmative action - I know this because she is my age and we attended LS at the same time. I know first hand that the law schools, especially those in the east, don’t consider Cubans as diversity candidates. Dean of admissions at Michigan told me that point blank.
So I ask you again: why does Barrett have broader appeal? They seem like almost the same people. Only real differences are Barrett taught in LS and the Cuban has a better LS pedigree and served in her state’s Supreme Court.
Barrett has a better track record on the 2nd amendment. Good enough for me. Not that Lagoa is bad on it, she just doesn’t have a track record if ruling on it.
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.
Anyway, still would like to know why Barrett has broader appeal. Not everyone is looking for a 2A hawk. And Lagoa is conservative enough that she’d be a pretty safe bet on that one critical issue.
I don’t care about taking away abortions. I don’t want the commiecrats expanding the Supreme Court or adding states to sway things in their favor, and I’m pretty sure either woman would do that, so yes, I’ll take the one with the more proven track record on gun rights. I believe that the 2nd amendment is the most important amendment because it’s the one that gives the populace the teeth to keep the rest of our rights intact.
I want to buy suppressors and put stocks on my “pistols” without paying extra money to the fucking government and going in a highly monitored registry to do it. I’d settle for suppressors and SBRs removed from the NFA, but I won’t complain if they kill the whole thing and put fun switch weapons back on the table.
Good enough for me!
I see what you were getting at. Gotta remember that Hispanics only count as minorities when they have a D next to their name. Lagoa would have been trashed by the dems as a racist no doubt. Hard to do that to the mom of black kids without completely giving away the game.
Also, Lagao's a bit older if she's your age no? All things being equal you take the younger judge who will serve longer.
I agree. Cubans don't get a spot with the rainbow coalition. Only in the Tug with our proud Duck overlords would a free market Cuban anti-taxer be viewed as too liberal.
My view is that it's easier to go after whitey than it is to go after anyone with a Hispanic surname and background, at least as far as racism.
To be painfully clear, for those who tend to get worked up about things, I'm not asking about Barrett's quals. I asked Sleddy to clarify why Barrett had broader appeal, and that discussion has wrapped up.
I pointed out that both candidates present academic deficiencies relative to the "typical" appointee, which would include Kavy. And they do. Otherwise, this is a political dog and pony show like it always is.
I don't have a hard-on for Barrett and don't care that he didn't go with the Cuban. It was just interesting discussion from an election strategy standpoint.
Barrett is better looking. I'd hit it. And she's probably an animal in the sack ... most Catholic girls are what with all the supression and guilt.
@creepycoug can you link to any important Lagoa decisions specifically regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or her general view on constitutional jurisprudence?
The only thing I saw that might indicate she would have what Trump supporters or Republicans would desire is she didn't recuse herself when democrats asked her and upheld the ruling that required re-enfranchised felons to pay all financial obligations before being allowed to vote.
"I pointed out that both candidates present academic deficiencies relative to the "typical" appointee, which would include Kavy. And they do. Otherwise, this is a political dog and pony show like it always is." In a lot of respects a Harvard or Yale law degree seems at times to be a POS degree. The intellectual culture is largely monoclonal and lacks any commitment to intellectual diversity and rigorous examination of the actual written law and facts. The fact that a poorly educated barry ended up as editor of the Harvard Law review says it all. When your Constitutional analysis is based on feelings rather that the actual written Constitutional document then your Ivy league degree is worthless. If you "feel" that a movie critical of a presidential candidate is not protected by the 1A then once again, your law degree is worthless.
There are incredibly smart people coming out of Harvard and Yale law. Some like Ted Cruz make it through and can actually read and understand the law. Others, like RBG and Kagan and Sotomayor aren't fit to be dog catcher. When someone feels that Sotomayor, who won't protect the first and second amendment, but deserves to be on the Court because she is a wise latina, then that person has some serious academic deficiencies. If ypu feel someone should be judged based on the color of their skin and sex, rather than the strength of their character then why bother with requiring a serious academic career.
So, what academic deficiency does ACB have? Honest question.
So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
Biden, Pelosi and other dems claim Catholicism but sure as hell don't practice it.
Comments
Also, Lagao's a bit older if she's your age no? All things being equal you take the younger judge who will serve longer.
1. Call them a rapist
How true!
My view is that it's easier to go after whitey than it is to go after anyone with a Hispanic surname and background, at least as far as racism.
To be painfully clear, for those who tend to get worked up about things, I'm not asking about Barrett's quals. I asked Sleddy to clarify why Barrett had broader appeal, and that discussion has wrapped up.
I pointed out that both candidates present academic deficiencies relative to the "typical" appointee, which would include Kavy. And they do. Otherwise, this is a political dog and pony show like it always is.
I don't have a hard-on for Barrett and don't care that he didn't go with the Cuban. It was just interesting discussion from an election strategy standpoint.
Barrett is better looking. I'd hit it. And she's probably an animal in the sack ... most Catholic girls are what with all the supression and guilt.
The only thing I saw that might indicate she would have what Trump supporters or Republicans would desire is she didn't recuse herself when democrats asked her and upheld the ruling that required re-enfranchised felons to pay all financial obligations before being allowed to vote.
Seems kind of thin... idk
There are incredibly smart people coming out of Harvard and Yale law. Some like Ted Cruz make it through and can actually read and understand the law. Others, like RBG and Kagan and Sotomayor aren't fit to be dog catcher. When someone feels that Sotomayor, who won't protect the first and second amendment, but deserves to be on the Court because she is a wise latina, then that person has some serious academic deficiencies. If ypu feel someone should be judged based on the color of their skin and sex, rather than the strength of their character then why bother with requiring a serious academic career.
So, what academic deficiency does ACB have? Honest question.