. . . she is a mother of seven children, and . . . when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence . . .
Wow! Seven kids! How has she found time to compile a resume like this?
She is a graduate of Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School. Prior to serving on the bench, Barrett was a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. She also taught briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia. Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and then the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after graduating from law school. She also has experience in private practice at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C. where she was part of the team who represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.
She has been published in numerous law reviews for various topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. She also served six years on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her in 2010.
Several of the others being considered would be great, too. Either of the Lee brothers, for instance.
She can't let her faith get in the way of interpreting the Constitution, which is mainly about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your cup of tea might not be mine, but that's OK, unless you force me to drink it. Despite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Catholics were feared, reviled and persecuted as Papists, back when America was great then, still wasting savages, disenfranchising women, and having their way with the Negro. It was feared that Catholic loyalty lay outside the union. They were even a reason for prohibition.
ReplyDeleteI pray that someday you may come to love this country.
ReplyDeleteOh, I presume your cup contains My country right or wrong sweetener. I tried that, not my cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteI learned about Catholic persecution in the Americas in parochial school. I'm Catholic and a universalist. Have a suck on your worst fear...
ReplyDeleteCatholics are STILL a reason for prohibition...
ReplyDelete;o)
We can't have sex without guilt but we sure can drink without it.
Delete"Here come da dolla: Koch Industries said they will commit money to fund ad campaigns that will try to pressure Democrats into supporting whomever Trump’s nominee may be. The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative campaign organization, launched ads criticizing Democrats who opposed Justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination last year."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-war-trumps-next-supreme-court-nominee-194527327.html
I'm very, very glad Koch Industries and the Koch Foundation have lots of money to further the cause of freedom in this country.
ReplyDeleteBest darn judge money can buy! There's something sleazy about that, isn't there?
ReplyDeleteNope.
ReplyDeleteIt's called backing up one's right to free speech with money. There's nothing morally questionable about it. Anybody with any policy orientation or set of principles can do it.
ReplyDeleteOh well, it's only buying a perceived outcome. Has this been going on a long time in our country ''tis of you, if not me? Still sounds slithery, for if the rich can buy their judges, that leaves them poorer folks without a judicial voice I guess.
ReplyDeleteNo one's "buying" anything. You don't think leftist groups are raising money for the exact opposite purpose?
ReplyDeleteThat ain't right either.
ReplyDeleteExplain.
ReplyDeleteDon't want to.
ReplyDeleteI've scanned the hot button issues and none of them affect me. Making abortion illegal in this country again comes with its own special set of problems. I never would have chosen it for myself or as far as my power goes, my impregnated. I guess that's not enough for your ilk. But you've always seemed to dig on chastisement and intransigence. When the test case comes I'm not one to be carrying a banner either way. I suppose I'm damned for that too. We have had this thing called stare decisis. Big money gonna change that? Then again, I'm not a huge booster of the City on the Hill. Too Puritan a concept. Our freedoms stop at the end of eachothers' noses.
ReplyDeleteHow much did the left pay for the 1973 7 -2 decision on Roe v Wade? It was decided as a privacy issue.
ReplyDeleteIf we strictly adhered to stare decisis, Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land.
ReplyDeleteRoe v. Wade was decided on absolutely garbage reasoning. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-decision-bad-law/
Everybody's gonna be an expert on the law. What about recent polls indicating 2/3 of Americans are in favor of letting Roe/Wade stand?
ReplyDeleteVery grim stat. We must pray hard.
ReplyDelete