7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently, Washington is abuzz with the news that President Trump his announced his intention to nominate a replacement to the seat on the Supreme Court and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, says his committee will hold hearings, the nomination will then be placed on the floor of the United States Senate and the vote for confirmation will be held prior to the November 3rd election and, what's more, Chairman Graham says it will be affirmatively voted and the new justice will be sworn to office prior to the election date as well. From that comes the howls and complaints by Democrats, saying it should be delayed so that it can be acted on by the winner of the election. They cite the way nominee Merrick Garland was treated by the Senate in 2016 when his nomination by Barack Obama was denied and they use that to say no action should be taken this year. But, and it is a big but, the circumstances are much different.
In the case of Garland, he got the same treatment as this year's nominee will receive since both are getting the Senate's advise and consent authority applied to their consideration. The fact that Garland was referred out of committee for his hearing, then received a vote by the full contingent in the Senate is the appropriate process, the difference is that the Senate, by its vote, decided not to bless the nomination. In this year's case which has not been decided yet, the process will be the same except for the likely outcome, for the Republicans apparently have the majority for the vote already in hand. So, different circumstances, rather than some kind of violation of the thought to be norm, actually is the reason for the likely outcome. And the argument that Chuck Schumer et al use to whine and moan is a non-issue as the President will now move forward to cement the selection by swearing in a new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now the President has a list of excellent potential candidates from which to select, and it is estimated that his decision will be released on Saturday, and then the committee hearings will commence, followed by the Senate decision by vote. The two leading candidates are Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana and Barbara Lagoa of Florida. Both are excellent choices and are rock solid conservatives who will support a traditional evaluation of the Constitution as applied to governmental governance. Barrett, however, would be my choice since she has a very pleasant demeanor which shows her adherence to the Christian goal to be kind to others. She also explained once in her prior academic environment regarding her view of what should be he goal of a good lawyer, and it is this:.
“If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”
I find that statement amazing and it is characteristic of her life as a devout practicing Catholic. And her qualifications are superior since she has been involved with the law both in an academic setting and as a judge. The forty-eight year old mother of seven children, two natural born and two adopted from Haiti has been extraordinary. After graduating from Notre Dame law school in 1997, she returned to her alma mater to teach law, and in 2010 became a full professor and received multi-year awards for excellence in the classroom. Finally, in 2017 she was selected by the President to serve as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where she serves to this day. The President could certainly do no better than this in appointing a well qualified lifelong and principled Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court and I personally hope she is his pick. God bless the United States of America and may she ever be free.
In the case of Garland, he got the same treatment as this year's nominee will receive since both are getting the Senate's advise and consent authority applied to their consideration. The fact that Garland was referred out of committee for his hearing, then received a vote by the full contingent in the Senate is the appropriate process, the difference is that the Senate, by its vote, decided not to bless the nomination. In this year's case which has not been decided yet, the process will be the same except for the likely outcome, for the Republicans apparently have the majority for the vote already in hand. So, different circumstances, rather than some kind of violation of the thought to be norm, actually is the reason for the likely outcome. And the argument that Chuck Schumer et al use to whine and moan is a non-issue as the President will now move forward to cement the selection by swearing in a new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now the President has a list of excellent potential candidates from which to select, and it is estimated that his decision will be released on Saturday, and then the committee hearings will commence, followed by the Senate decision by vote. The two leading candidates are Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana and Barbara Lagoa of Florida. Both are excellent choices and are rock solid conservatives who will support a traditional evaluation of the Constitution as applied to governmental governance. Barrett, however, would be my choice since she has a very pleasant demeanor which shows her adherence to the Christian goal to be kind to others. She also explained once in her prior academic environment regarding her view of what should be he goal of a good lawyer, and it is this:.
“If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”
I find that statement amazing and it is characteristic of her life as a devout practicing Catholic. And her qualifications are superior since she has been involved with the law both in an academic setting and as a judge. The forty-eight year old mother of seven children, two natural born and two adopted from Haiti has been extraordinary. After graduating from Notre Dame law school in 1997, she returned to her alma mater to teach law, and in 2010 became a full professor and received multi-year awards for excellence in the classroom. Finally, in 2017 she was selected by the President to serve as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where she serves to this day. The President could certainly do no better than this in appointing a well qualified lifelong and principled Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court and I personally hope she is his pick. God bless the United States of America and may she ever be free.
RSS Feed