Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)
Comments
-
Holy shit, the nu-democrats in a nutshell. YBE.Doogles said:Headline might as well read "Hard to call new nominee a racist and rapist, what now?"
-
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.creepycoug said:
Good enough for me!EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Sledog said:
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.creepycoug said:
That’s essentially what I said.Sledog said:
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.Sledog said:
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.creepycoug said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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
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.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
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.
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 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.
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.creepycoug said:
Good enough for me!EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Sledog said:
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.creepycoug said:
That’s essentially what I said.Sledog said:
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.Sledog said:
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.creepycoug said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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
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.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
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.
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 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.
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. -
-
Blatant lie, but he was “joking” so that’s OK.
-
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.Swaye said:
Barrett is slam dunk 2A. I love her. Swaye mushroom stamp of approval.EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Sledog said:
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.creepycoug said:
That’s essentially what I said.Sledog said:
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.Sledog said:
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.creepycoug said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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
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.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
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. -
The dem opposition playbook:
1. Call them a rapist
-
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/26/2017-23269/federal-law-protections-for-religious-libertyPurpleThrobber said: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
-
How true!
-
Not going to make up my mind until my Catholicism superiority guysm @GrundleStiltzkin weighs in.
-
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.creepycoug said:
Good enough for me!EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
Ah the one issue litmus test. I thought only the liberals did that.EsophagealFeces said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Sledog said:
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.creepycoug said:
That’s essentially what I said.Sledog said:
Barrett has broader appeal is my guess as to why she was picked.Sledog said:
Way Moore Catholic Highspanics than just Cuban. Gong for the big win.creepycoug said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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
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.
Why do you think she has “broader appeal”?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Seems kind of thin... idk -
"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. -
Barrett believes in God. That’s the attack.
-
#1 in her class at Notre Dame works as academic achievement for me.
-
She's a little right but it's fun to watch the liberal thots lose it on social media.
-
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.WestlinnDuck said: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.
-
-
Honestly I can't without going and looking for it. Sounds like Barrett has a more distinct track record on those issues, which I would expect as a disciple of Scalia.Houhusky said:@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.
Seems kind of thin... idk
That said, I had never heard of either of them before this nomination round. I had heard of Kavanaugh before his appointment, probably because he was on the DC Circuit COA and I'd heard of Gorsuch before he was appointed but I don't recall in what context.
I know next to nothing about Lagoa other than her bio. Desantis is a pretty conservative guy so she'd have had to have passed his test before apppointing her to the FSC. I guess one other knock on her is that she's only been on the federal COA for a short tim, and that credential is probably more powerful than state supreme court experience for a SCTOUS appointment. And her Fla. SC stint was also short-lived. So she doesn't have a long track record on the bench.
OTOH, she was in private practice and spent time as a federal prosecutor.
OTOH, she wasn't a law clerk at the SCOTUS, which is a credential a lot of appointees have and Barrett has that.
OTOH, she's a Federalist Society chicka, so you know she has the textualist and originalist goods.
IDK, looks like he made the right choice and it's not like he's going to lose Florida for passing on Lagoa or anything.
I really have no dog in this hunt, except that my irrational fears about people who spend too much time looking at the sky for answers is well documented here in the Tug, and so irrationally I'd prefer to have somebody on the court who is conservative but who doesn't look for reasons to bring it to work. Barrett seems a little more religiously kooky, but then again, don't ever underestimate a Cuban woman's Catholicism. They bring that shit hard and heavy in Hialeah. Trust me; I know.
I find that I like looking at Barrett. So there's that. -
-
There's a lot of crazy categorical non-sense in the first paragraph of your post, and so I'll take a pass on that one. If it makes you feel good to say I'm scared, then sure, I'm scared.WestlinnDuck said:"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.
As to your question, I think I've already covered it. She went to a law school that only recently cracked the top 30 and is MUCH MUCH easier to get into than the schools SCOTUS appointees tend to come from. That applies to justices from one end of the political spectrum to the other. She also attended Rhodes College. My position on small liberal arts colleges being the gold standard for undergraduate eduction is clear and consistent. So it's not that. But among that cohort of schools, Rhodes is not elite at all and is never mentioned as a "small ivy" or any other distinction of note. Admission rate is somewhere close to 50% and their test score numbers are not super high (or low).
You may scoff at this, but the fact is the competition in her undergrad and law school was signficantly less rigorous than it would be at H, Y or S, or a bunch of other schools for that matter. Lagoa was worse undergrad (FIU) and better law school (Columbia). Not a knock on her intellectual ability, which I can't possibly know. My guess, though, is that even a devout Catholic would choose a number of schools before Notre Dame if they were options, and even if it had to be Catholic, then Georgetown is the choice if you have it. She may not be a great standardized test taker. IDK.
-
The Sleddy seal of approval is good enough for me!Sledog said:#1 in her class at Notre Dame works as academic achievement for me.
-
if it wasn't for the USA Today fact checking the Babylon Bee and determining that their article on the overturning of Ginsburg death is satire - ACB might not be able to be approved and seated to the Bench
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/27/fact-check-only-satire-could-9th-circuit-overturn-ginsburgs-death/3548008001/ -
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said: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.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people. -
Depends on what ‘spiritual beliefs’ means. I’m agnostic, but in my observations in life, including my own mom, secular liberalism isn’t any different than religious cults in terms of faith and belief, including the shunning of family and friends who don’t follow the cult.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said: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.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people. -
Raised Catholic. Mother Italian Catholic. Dad converted. Grandmother (dad's side) converted. Of course all the WOPS are Catholic. Some of the Hillbillies. Not a damn thing wrong with Catholics! Nothing to fear. The left hates religion because religion gets in the way of people worshiping politics. Of course if they get their communist utopia there will be no religion. Banned. Only the state.creepycoug said:
Honestly I can't without going and looking for it. Sounds like Barrett has a more distinct track record on those issues, which I would expect as a disciple of Scalia.Houhusky said:@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.
Seems kind of thin... idk
That said, I had never heard of either of them before this nomination round. I had heard of Kavanaugh before his appointment, probably because he was on the DC Circuit COA and I'd heard of Gorsuch before he was appointed but I don't recall in what context.
I know next to nothing about Lagoa other than her bio. Desantis is a pretty conservative guy so she'd have had to have passed his test before apppointing her to the FSC. I guess one other knock on her is that she's only been on the federal COA for a short tim, and that credential is probably more powerful than state supreme court experience for a SCTOUS appointment. And her Fla. SC stint was also short-lived. So she doesn't have a long track record on the bench.
OTOH, she was in private practice and spent time as a federal prosecutor.
OTOH, she wasn't a law clerk at the SCOTUS, which is a credential a lot of appointees have and Barrett has that.
OTOH, she's a Federalist Society chicka, so you know she has the textualist and originalist goods.
IDK, looks like he made the right choice and it's not like he's going to lose Florida for passing on Lagoa or anything.
I really have no dog in this hunt, except that my irrational fears about people who spend too much time looking at the sky for answers is well documented here in the Tug, and so irrationally I'd prefer to have somebody on the court who is conservative but who doesn't look for reasons to bring it to work. Barrett seems a little more religiously kooky, but then again, don't ever underestimate a Cuban woman's Catholicism. They bring that shit hard and heavy in Hialeah. Trust me; I know.
I find that I like looking at Barrett. So there's that. -
You forgot that you also lie and love to be lied to and that if we scratch you that we will, in fact, reveal a fascist. Otherwise you nailed it.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said: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.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people. -
Unless Romney and some other loser we don't know about yet flip, this is all political theatre at this point. She will be seated. No amount of liberal grandstanding or hand wringing will change that.
