What are Amy Barret's political positions, other than generally being conservative? Any one know her position as to the Second Amendment? Please, just the known facts. No guesses. Thanks!

I’m sure they’re all better than Ginsburg’s were.

She is definitely pro-life and I believe that she is pro second amendment. She is a strict constitutionalist.

It seems she has not ruled directly regarding the 2A. This is from Wikipedia:
F
Second Amendment
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).[57] Barrett wrote a lengthy dissent in favor of gun-ownership rights. The plaintiff was convicted of mail fraud for submitting bills to Medicare for reimbursement for non-compliant therapeutic shoe inserts. Due to his felony conviction, he was not allowed to legally possess a firearm. He challenged this denial and the majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence."[57] Barrett dissented, stating that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to non-violent felons promotes this interest, and that denying such rights is a violation of the second amendment.[58][59] Highlighting Barrett’s historical and originalist approach, the National Review lauded Barrett’s “impressive” Kanter dissent.[60]

Does she own a gun? If not, Pres. Trump can pick somebody else, I'm tired of schitthead feral judges like Justice John Roberts. I want a gun owner who will fight FOR the 2nd Amendment, not just kinda/sorta act half-ass for gun ownership.

Yep. A preferably a MAN.

I'd take Amy over Johnny.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This any day, every day, all day.

L. Lin Wood

Right now from what I read Ted Cruz is the man Donald Trump has in mind to replace her.

I’d take Ted over ALL other Nominees.

Can Ted vote for himself during confirmation? We will need every vote we can get!

Ted has already turned down the offer from Trump- preferring to make change at the legislative level by fighting the conservative fight. Judging by his demeanor since the election, I agree we need him right where he is....

I've watched Amy Barret on videos and interviews and she is a very impressive jurist. Strictly constitutional, which means she won't be making law from the bench such as RBG seemed to try to do along with the other activist justices... I think she would be a excellent pick and would possible pass much easier than Kavanaugh... I would think it would be unthinkable for the democrats to put a woman nominee through the same BS they put Kavanaugh through in the last appointment....

The biggest problem at the moment is that Mitt Romney will undoubtedly spite Trump by voting against any appointment he puts forward regardless of the qualifications. McMurtry and Collins have said they won't vote on a nominee until after the election or the inaugaration, depending on who wins the election. So, with only a 2 vote Senate majority, seating a Supreme Court justice any time soon is problematic at the moment unless McConnel can rally the votes somehow.. there is a tiny chance he has a couple democrat votes in his pocket but he isn't letting on what his game plan on except for he has promised to bring the nominee to a vote...

This is going to get ugly no matter what happens but I hope he gets it done sooner rather than later...

Ted would probably be my top choice also but I think we could do a lot worse than Barret.

I’m not aware of all of her legal stances but I do know that she has a reputation for being a strict constitutionalist. If true that’s good enough for me and is basically all that I look for in a judge. We don’t need “great legal minds” our founders wrote the constitution in simple enough terms for anyone of average intelligence to easily understand. We need judges that love the constitution and honor there oath to follow it.

I think Cruz or Barret would both be very good picks and probably second on the court only to Thomas.

Wasn't Barret the one that adopted two niglets?

Definitely moves her up on the cringe factor scale for me.

Cruz needs to stay in the Senate to help maintain the R majority. If the majority is maintained or expanded he would make a great pick should President Trump get another pick in his 2nd term. Believe Judge Thomas might step down during Trumps second term should the R Senate majority be maintained. THAT would be a great time for a Cruz appointment.

It would be hard to do better than Ted Cruz.

Correct.

Social Justice Warrior, at heart.

Sheister, I think if Trump sends up a nominee, no matter who it is, this fight will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like recess in kindergarten. It will be bad, bad, bad! But that will hurt the democrat chances in the election. I think most people are tired of their schitt show!

Didn't Cruz just get re-elected?

Must have 5 years left, at least.

Abbott would appoint a replacement?

IDK Texas procedure.

Special election?

But who the D's got? Puto?

Cruz would be fine.

Then, Josh Hawley, when Thomas bows out.

At this point I would much rather have Cruz in the Senate. We know where he stands, which is firmly with the President. We have enough wavering RINOs in the Senate to be uncomfortable with our slim majority there. As I said Cruz would make an excellent 2nd term appointment by Trump should Thomas retire.

Ted Cruz is too valuable as a Republican Senator from Texas. No guarantee his replacement beats the next Beto.

Ted Cruz is on record saying he does not want scotus, at least for now.

Another problem for Cruz even if he would accept. It’s going to come down to a razor thin vote to confirm. Cruz holds one of those votes now. I think that it would be hilarious if Cruz would vote to confirm himself but he would likely have to abstain from voting.

Yep. +1.

Throw Mark Kelly into the equation, if elected he could replace McSally as soon as November 30th since she was appointed to the Senate rather than elected. Polling currently has Kelly up 10 points over McSally.

The dumocrats can't trash and bash a female. Trump has the dumocrats in a tight spot and wins if he nominates a female. The questions are, is the nominee going to be a winner for US and the Constitution? Can the rhino Republican Senators vote against a woman? Especially Collins who's needing every vote. Only time will tell.

Barret. The Dems won’t touch her, she’s clean, and no baggage. Cruz has a personal baggage handler. Constitutionalist works for me.

main problem i see is that she is a woman and only 48. she could be on the bench for a long, long time and call me what you will, i don't trust women's critical thought processes. that said, a lot of men seem to have problems separating feelings from facts too so who the hell knows anymore. i agree that nominating a woman may make it harder for the democrats to skewer her but these POS's in Congress these days seem to outdo themselves stooping to new lows. so ya, put me in the maybe column.

Agreed, a female definitely has a different thought process. An educated white women adopting black kids makes absolutely no sense. I can see adopting oriental kids but negros.......makes one really wonder what the heck.

when a white woman adopts negro kids she is making a political statement which is.....F U white people. also she has a cucked husband so she is a domineering bi tch

yes men are being feminized big time

i don't have a problem with the adopting black kids part. i think she did a good thing getting them the hell out of that schithole. matter of fact, if a lot of black kids were raised by decent white parents it could go a long way to straightening out that culture. but i digress.

white parents better spend more time raising their own white kids cause most of them are useless and lazy. so you really think we need more negroes in this country?

He's a nutcase Christian Zionist (which is a heresy) and an Israel Firster. That means he's under the thumb of the folks moving to shut down American liberty, particularly free speech, which issue is almost certainly going to be coming before the Supreme Court very soon. No thanks.

Why should he have to abstain? Every president in history has publicly voted, presumably for himself. Cruz would have every right to vote for himself. That's his job and that's why TX elected him. It's his elected duty to help select the best possible judge and abstaining is shirking his duty.

You’re a fugking idiot.

This.

Good grief......

She seems fine. Everything I’ve read about her is good. That said, why is it that you seem to have to be either a Catholic or a Jew to be on the SC when the country is still a majority white and Protestant country?

you are right but so is mike sick pence mike plumpeo and trump all led by the rabid mossad agent kosher kushner. you aint getting nowhere in the GOP unless you are a servant of israel

I guess you raising mulatto grandkids

Sadly, true.

it is suicidal people like you that has caused the US to go from 93% white to 58% white. south afreaka is the US future. plain to see you are a cucked man

I guess you raising mulatto grandkids and you are cucked

Social Justice Warrior. No thanks.

She may be Liberal. Let's check this out before we jump. The interracial adoption gives me pause. Also I'm tired of this deferring to American Indian claims. We could lose the Black Hills to the Sioux Indians. They would turn it into another Pine Ridge ghetto.

I have no grandkids you uneducated racist hillbilly dumbfugk. You prove what a worthless piece of [bleep] you are every time you post.

Come on Bango S play us a tune you Deliverance hillbilly. Obviously you’re one of those In breeders. Did your dad think you had a nice mouth?

I've wondered this for some time now...

Bottom line is Trump isnt going to nominate anyone the left will vote to confirm and visa versa. So therefore the nonimee should be the most conservative person Mitch thinks he can get confirmed.

No downside to doing it before the election. Trump wins and we got another conservative long term on the court. Trump loses and we got another conservative on the court long term. The risky move is to wait as there is no guarantee both Trump with win and the Senate will remain in Republican hands for four more years.

Yep.

As I recall, Amy Barrett wrote an opinion in a case involving AR-15's in which she argued that it is unconstitutional to ban AR-15's because they are a firearm in common use. That would indicate that she is a Second Amendment advocate.

Agreed. IMO, this is bigger than any single candidate.

I would prefer Trump with a R senate and house. Then we can concentrate on getting conservatives into congress.

you will soon hahahah

Thank you, I did not know this. She sounds like a winner to me. IDC who she adopted as children, Color means nothing. It's what's inside and how they were raised that makes the difference. Solid choice in my book. The Dems have nothing to challenge her on.

Come on Banjo S is that the best you can do you uneducated dumbass??? I get that you’re the banjo playing kid from deliverance grown up. We all do.

Yup. And keep Cruz in the trenches fighting the fight, in the Senate. If I'm still alive then, Cruz in 2024 works for me. Joan Larsen or Amul Thapar would work well IMO to replace Ruthie. Joan clerked for Scalia and raghead Thapar is a strong constitutionalist with more actual time on the bench than all the others combined. A lot of the nominees have too much time in academia and the DC beltway...a big negative IMO.

Put the Douche on ignore. He's a cop and Jew hater, no value here. Rambles on and on like a pig in shiet. His post's have no value.

Agreed

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And whoever it's, if it's a man, they will be Me-Two-ed, so a woman is easier to push thru.

But whoever it is, the R's just need to dismiss any & all Demon protests & delaying requests for more time.................they are not going to vote from the nominee, not a single one, ever, so just have the hearings, then call the vote w/o delay. The days of the Demons ever giving a single SCOTUS vote to an R nominee with a bi-partisan vote are over for ever so move on. (RGB was confirmed 96-4)

But that's wishful thinking, I think. Nothing is likely to happen very quickly. Sadly.

MM

I would prefer the candidate to be a Protestant, ultra conservative Caucasian male.

Nobody else represents my interests properly.

Like legalized marijauna?

A brief google of "watch4bear" shows some interesting uploads.

Are you high now? All potted up?

lol,.."all potted up"

You know, like potted meat. Parts and pieces

To me, there's 3 criteria for why you want a candidate:

1. Who's the best choice as a Constitutionalist on the SCOTUS.
2. Who's has the greatest odds of getting confirmed in the short time frame.
3. Who would cause the greatest Left meltdown if confirmed.

Honestly, I would prefer to go straight to #1 but I don't know who that is at this point as I'm not a legal scholar with in depth knowledge of all their rulings. #2 is probably one of the women, even if I hate the identity politics garbage. And #3 is probably Ted Cruz. Can't imagine a bigger Dem meltdown than Ted Cruz getting confirmed.

You'll be hard pressed to find a more pro gun nominee than Amy Barrett, except Cruz of course.

Amy Barrett would be an awesome choice, she is my favorite of those nominated, her pro life and second amendment views will cause the left to have an absolute meltdown. They will have a tough time trying to get a false sexual harassment or racism charge on her, not that they won’t try. These is nothing that they won’t stoop to, nothing is beneath them.

Cruz went on board with Paul Ryan to pass the TPP trade agreement. Then tried to go against it when he learned that it came with a political cost. The TPP was a globalist initiative.

He also blamed Trump's rhetoric for the riot which occurred at a Trump rally in Chicago during the GOP primary for the 2016 election.

Cruz shifts with the wind. He's a politician. He's not dependable enough to be a Supreme Court Justice.

She's NOT Conservative or Republican. She sided with the IL gov that banned gatherings of more than 50 people, even though they allowed thousands to gather to protest raycism...

https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...-political-gatherings-to-combat-covid-19
https://archive.fo/Jusaw

JFC, if she can't get simple shat like that right, she got no business even touring the SC building, much less workin there.

She clerked for Scalia and he was rock solid.

"We should have Constitutionalist judges!"......well, we should, but it ain't gonna happen. A REAL Constitutionalist simply would not be allowed to get very far.

Roberts clerked for Rehnquist.

All I know for sure is that whoever the president nominates is gonna touch off the next left wing chit show just like with Kavanaugh. They will come up with something disgusting even if they have to invent it. Nothing is too low for them. Scum like that will do anything to further their agenda.

We can use all the educated, conservative, productive negroes we can get in this country.

I hate identity politics also but in this case any male nominee is going to get accused of sexual harassment to stall the proceedings. The dems have undoubtedly got dozens of women lined up to accuse the new nominee of rape, they're just waiting to find out the name to put on the papers. Nominating a woman takes that card away from them. I've seen the name of Barbara Lagoa thrown around in addition to Barrett. I don't know much about her but at first glance she looks OK, she's a miami born cuban and that would probably help deliver the cuban community vote for Trump in the election. Florida's going to be tight and is a must win for Trump so that's a consideration.

Ideally we'd nominate the most conservative and best qualified person we can find but that's not reality, this thing is highly politicized and we have to have someone that can quickly get through the hearings while the dems throw anything and everything at them. A white male is going to get accused of sexism and racism, that's the first page of the dem playbook and is a given in today's environment. Right now they'll just want to stall the hearings until after the election, it's critical that we get the new justice seated before the election.

Would I like a conservative protestant white male? Yes, I would but his nomination would get stalled and strung out by the dems past the election and it'd be as good as dead. The nominee won't get a vote from a dem no matter who it is, that's a given, but by picking carefully Trump can take a lot of arrows out of the dems quiver that could be used to hold up the confirmation.

The only reason the nomination would get stalled is that the R's let it happen just as they did with K.

Hold the committee hearing, say no to the delaying & stalling tactics, call the committee vote, then the entire Senate vote.

The R's have just been too afraid to play hardball, time to grow a set.

MM

That would be sweeeeeeet !!!!

True, but if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass. It ain't gonna happen. When's the last time you saw anyone on the republican side in Washington, other than President Trump, that had balls?

Collins (ME) has come out against voting before the election as has Liiisa.

I despise both of them bitches. Especially the bug eyed one.

Amy is a Louisiana native.

Collins tweeted. “In fairness to the American people who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected.

Please note the statement does not say she will not vote.

Trump is calling in his chips on McConnell, the Turtle has already said there will be a vote on the President's nominee. He swings a big stick in the Senate and knows where the bodies are buried.

Put Amy on the bench, you get the Evangelicals off their ass and in the fight as the thought of one more plus her kicking Roe to the curb would bring more to the polls and most likely get the Senate more solidly Republican. That is a win for McConnell and his thieving plans, but would be a help to us as gun owners, don't discount that old bastard...

Doggy style, missionary????