OldBrownsFan Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 I disagreed with Tour on this a while back but now I am not sure. Take the deal now or take the chance of losing in November with the prospect of having to confirm a more liberal judge? Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30. No doubt if Clinton wins she would nominate someone much more to the left and younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Trump said he will name about 10 potential people he'd nominate for the supreme court soon. Note that not being crazy pro-life does not mean liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Trump said he will name about 10 potential people he'd nominate for the supreme court soon. Note that not being crazy pro-life does not mean liberal. The only one I have heard Trump endorse so far for the Supreme Court is his liberal abortion loving sister. 8/27/15 Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.” If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.” So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 If you delay, I think you run the risk of alienating potential voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 The only one I have heard Trump endorse so far for the Supreme Court is his liberal abortion loving sister. 8/27/15 Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.” If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.” So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru Trump said she'd be great, but obviously wouldn't appoint her because of the conflict of interest. His sister is not a liberal pro-abortion extremist, and that characterization is absolutely Retard. --- FYI don't use Lyin' Ted Cruz's lies to back up your beliefs. It's time to forget every lie you've ever believed and get on the Trump train. Cruz’s sole citation for labeling her an “extremist” was a opinion she wrote in 2000 for a three-judge panel striking down a New Jersey law banning “partial birth abortions” — she called the law so broad and vague that it could be read to ban almost any abortion at any stage. (OMG She's actually objectively looking at a law instead of letting personal opinions cloud her judgement) “You know,” Cruz also said, “the one person he [Trump] has suggested that would make a good justice is his sister,” who, he explained pointedly, was “appointed by Bill Clinton. (Lyin' Ted part 1)” Cruz added that “she is a hard-core pro-abortion liberal judge. And he said she would make a terrific justice.” Cruz failed to point out, among other things, that Barry was first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan (Lyin' Ted part 2 - BTFO), that the outcome of the abortion ruling was dictated by a Supreme Court decision on a nearly identical law and that conservative Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in Barry’s judgment, albeit not in in the legal reasoning stated in her opinion (Samuel A. Alito Jr. is a pro-abortion extremist) Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/08/meet-donald-trumps-sister-the-tough-federal-judge-ted-cruz-called-a-radical-pro-abortion-extremist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 It's time to come home OBF, see the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 There probably won't be a better candidate put up by any Democrat than Merrick Garland. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 There probably won't be a better candidate put up by any Democrat than Merrick Garland. WSS Yep, he's relatively central, has worked for both republicans and democrats, and yet the republicans refuse to do anything. If Obama had nominated Al Sharpton, sure, but Garland, as OBF said, isn't terrible. Maybe Hillary will appoint Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Yep, he's relatively central, has worked for both republicans and democrats, and yet the republicans refuse to do anything. If Obama had nominated Al Sharpton, sure, but Garland, as OBF said, isn't terrible. Maybe Hillary will appoint Obama? They riled people up because they made everybody think he'll take your guns. More so about trying to make Obama look bad than anything Garland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Yep, he's relatively central, has worked for both republicans and democrats, and yet the republicans refuse to do anything. If Obama had nominated Al Sharpton, sure, but Garland, as OBF said, isn't terrible. Maybe Hillary will appoint Obama? That's not the first time this has been suggested and it won't be the first time that I mention it will make the nomination of Harriet miers look good. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 ObaMao's nominee cannot be put into the supreme court. He is very anti-2nd Amendment. The left would desperately love to add him to the supreme court for just that reason. and, everybody knows that ObaMao would never put forward a nominee that was not pro-choice. Behind the scenes, ObaMao will know his stance on that. and, Garland is pro mmgw/anti-fossil fuel - he is so much to Obamao's liking, it doesn't matter that his being white is just a manipulative trojan horse. Any nominee for the supreme court that ignores the 2nd Amendment, is not qualified. He is activist law maker, not Constitutional law decider. There are too many of those on the court already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Yes they should go ahead and confirm merrick garland or it's going to bite them in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 It's patently impossible to take all the guns away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Trump said she'd be great, but obviously wouldn't appoint her because of the conflict of interest. His sister is not a liberal pro-abortion extremist, and that characterization is absolutely Retard. --- FYI don't use Lyin' Ted Cruz's lies to back up your beliefs. It's time to forget every lie you've ever believed and get on the Trump train. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/08/meet-donald-trumps-sister-the-tough-federal-judge-ted-cruz-called-a-radical-pro-abortion-extremist/ Cruz had nothing to do with what I said. A Failed Defense of Judge Maryanne Trump Barry Fred Barbash has an article in the Washington Post today (which I guess is where you got your information from) defending Judge Barry’s partial-birth abortion opinion. He gives the last word to a blogger named Matthew Stiegler, who calls criticisms of her a “smear.” But neither Barbash nor Stiegler says much that is pertinent to the case I made against that opinion, and what they do say is not persuasive. Partial-birth abortion, to review, is a procedure in which an abortionist partially delivers the unborn child, pierces her skull, vacuums her brain, and then removes the body from the womb. Pro-lifers pushed for a ban on this procedure, in part to mark an outer limit to the right to abortion that the Supreme Court had invented: Even if the Court had stopped legislatures from prohibiting violence against unborn children fully within the womb, perhaps it would allow them to prohibit violence on children who were partway out of it—who were, that is, partially born. Even many pro-choicers were revolted by this procedure, and almost all Republians and some Democrats joined to enact bans. By the time Judge Barry’s opinion was released, the Supreme Court had already voted 5-4 to strike down a Nebraska law against partial-birth abortion. Judge Alito thought that the high court’s decision dictated that his court strike down a similar New Jersey law. Judge Barry went further than that. She made her own arguments against the law, arguments that Alito correctly noted were superfluous given the Nebraska decision. She went out of her way, in other words, to argue that partial-birth abortion deserved constitutional protection. Judge Alito presumably disagreed: Once on the Supreme Court, he voted to allow bans on partial-birth abortion. (His side won, 5-4.) Judge Barry called the New Jersey law a “desperate attempt” to overturn Roe v. Wade. She wrote that it was “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” She dismissed the distinction between an unborn and a partially-born child: A woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth. . . . Establishing the cervix as the demarcation line between abortion and infanticide is nonsensical on its face. . . . While there are unquestionably numerous ethical, philosophical, and moral issues surrounding abortion, we are unpersuaded that these issues — or our legal analysis — should turn on where in the woman’s body the fetus expires during an abortion. That argument went beyond anything the Supreme Court had said. As pro-lifers pointed out, it also tiptoed up to declaring a constitutional right to infanticide. The Supreme Court had effectively made the legal status of the unborn child depend on its location within the womb rather than its stage of development. If location were now to be dismissed as irrelevant, then why should killing a child partway out of the womb be a constitutional right while killing one all the way out of the womb should be a crime? Wouldn’t that be “irrational line-drawing” too? (Judge Barry offered no line of her own.) Why shouldn’t an abortionist be allowed, as a matter of right, to fully deliver the child and then kill it? After all, a woman seeking that procedure would plainly be seeking a dead child. So Judge Barry went out of her way to make an argument for treating partial-birth abortion as a constitutional right, an argument that Judge Alito pointedly declined to embrace and that logically advances the case for a constitutional right to infanticide. It was also an argument that helped motivate Congress to pass a law clarifying that children fully delivered in abortions were covered by the infanticide laws. Most of the points that Barbash and Stiegler raise in Barry’s defense are, as I said, not pertinent to the case I made against her. So, for example, Stiegler notes that Judge Barry sided with a pro-life protester who brought a case after being threatened in front of an abortion clinic. That decision, praiseworthy though it may have been, does not contradict my assessment that she takes an extreme view of the right to abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined a unanimous opinion protecting the free-speech rights of clinic protesters. Her opinions in partial-birth abortion cases—in 2007, she made her own version of the Barry argument I’m criticizing here—are still extreme. Both Barbash and Stiegler point out as well that Barry was originally a Reagan appointee (although Bill Clinton elevated her). Again, that doesn’t contradict me. Judge Richard Posner was also a Reagan appointee, but he too is an extremist on abortion (even disagreeing with that unanimous Court decision on pro-lifers and free speech). Stiegler notes that the attorney general of New Jersey had declined to defend the law. That’s true. But the law had been enacted over the veto of the governor who appointed the attorney general. Stiegler omits that context. Stiegler says that the opinion is respectful of pro-lifers. There are certainly passages of the opinion that declare respect for them. But the passages about the law’s being “irrational,” “desperate,” etc.—there are several more I haven’t quoted here, including an insinuation that the law’s drafters were dishonest—justify my description of her tone as “sneering.” Neither Stiegler nor Barbash quotes any of these passages. I also think that my description of her opinion as “expansive” is justified by a) its going out of its way to register opinions of Barry that she did not need to register to decide the case, its going beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter, and c) the implications of its argument. Stiegler says that Barry might have upheld a partial-birth abortion law that had been “clearly drafted.” He does not deal with the argument she actually made, which applied to any attempt to protect a child partially delivered. He even writes that were she a legislator, she would probably have voted “in favor of such a ban if it were competently drafted.” He offers not a shread of evidence for this view. Judge Barry may have any number of virtues worth celebrating. But her opinion on partial-birth abortion was dreadful, and the Washington Post has relied on a defense of it that obfuscates the issues involved. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432506/failed-defense-judge-maryanne-trump-barry Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432506/failed-defense-judge-maryanne-trump-barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 I'll let somebody aside from myself respond to the national reviews bullshit. You don't dedicate an entire issue to anti -Trump and then pretend to be objective or fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 It's time to come home OBF, see the light. haha this is amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.