Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amy Barrett: A Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist

So, how many of you have written to Trump with your character assessments of the possible nominees?

I know they are both Trump appointments, but can you tell us something about them in terms of their records?

You try to make that sound like it's a bad thing. Maybe you should hang out at a riot and show them your SJW card, maybe they won't brain you.

AKwolverine: YOU are EXACTLY correct in your questioning for the constant flood/flurry of naysyers on this site!
Would these perpetually negative naysayers prefer to have the anti-American, pro-socialist, power-mad, bull dagger, greedy criminal now known as "the hildabeast" nominating SCOTUS Judges?
I would be boo-koo happy with Ms.Barrett serving on the Supreme Court of the United States - 1,000 times more happy with her than with any hildabeast nominee/judge.
Sheesh.
GO TRUMP
MAGA (despite the numerous naysayers and contraries on this sites constant sniping, belly-aching and back-stabbing!)
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Hate to say it but the day of the White European Race being in the majority in the USA is and has come to a close! The Muslims are outscrewing us 8 to 1 and the Bros and Ho be doing about the same....if not more and that ain't even considering what the river swimmers are doing!! As a white male....we is now in da minority!!

That's due to policy. Policy, incidentally, set by white men.

Tyrone has shown his colors. Or rather, color, since he's a monochrome. And he's also wrong.

Having a bigot racist on the SC bench is horrific, EITHER WAY. KKK or BLM doesn't matter. What we so desperately need is not another agenda-driven zealot but a Constitutionalist who examines each issue before her compared to the intent of the Founding Fathers and their written words. That's why the Supreme Court was created, and exactly the way it must be maintained.

My main disagreement with Barrett is that I think she'll be weak on immigration. There is the obvious fact she adopted the 2 Haitian kids and also Catholics have been pretty big in importing refugees into the country.

Why is this bad? Because IMO almost unlimited immigration is going to be the downfall of the US. Very few (going by voter demographics) of those people we import value anything that I do. If it was up to me I'd stop all immigration for a minimum of 50 or so years.

In the long run it doesn't matter what I think since no one with my way of thinking will ever get close to political power.

Oh, we're in agreement on those concerns. I was asking about the two choices you stated you'd prefer, Rushing and Bade.

too late it's conibear

TRH
They are probably at least as solid on the 2nd and don't have the immigration red flags. I haven't read that much about any of the mentioned candidates. I'm not voting on them so my interest is minimal.

I doubt if any of them would be my first choice, but I'm not POTUS and I'm not making the decision. If I was deciding who to nominate I'd be doing a ton of reading and in person meetings if at all possible.

This is the case - what we need - the guidance of our democratic republic is weakened, for all citizens, when narrow thinking ideologues are placed in the judiciary. The accurate and focused application of the principles stated in our Constitution is not served by limited minds and tight biases.

There seems to be some strange thinking in this thread - as if our legal decrees and government should be tailored to MY wants and biases - even at the same time I am complaining based on my perception that others, with whom do not agree, are getting things THEIR way - and where does that kind of thinking and behavior lead an organization? And, our government IS an organization, whether or not we may think so.

Somewhere in all of this humanly fuss we seem to have buried the concept of principle.

What does the constitution say on the matter?

Her thoughts on the virus have nothing to do with the decision. The decision is on the governments ability to address a health threat. That ability is well founded in prior SC decisions going all the way back to the late 1700's. The same way they can put someone in an asylum for TB or force a small pox vaccination.

Granted, the Covid is overblown. But this decision effects the future when it could be very real.

Not.

Governmental regulations have to serve a legitimate .gov interest, to be Constitutional.

Lockin up healthy people has never been legitimate, and never been held Constitutional.

And, it wasn't Constitutional in this case, either.

She voted in favor of big government, because it *was* the government.

The left's gonna love her, if she gets in.

The founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.

Well aware.
What does the constitution say on the matter?

What if she adopted two white kids from eastern Europe? Good sign???

Man, some guys can't see the forest because of the trees, lol.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Or, from Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."

Sheesh, if only we could have Ginsberg back.