Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2018, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Arizona
6,137 posts, read 3,859,906 times
Reputation: 4899

Advertisements

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...d-start-woman/

President Trump and Republicans are blessed with the opportunity to give America new judges on federal courts and supreme court justices who will be sitting on the bench in 2050.

Would be one of the best things to ever happen in the history of America if President Trump had lots of young, very conservative female strict constitutionalists sitting on the court for the next 30-50 years that a future Democratic president would be powerless against.

Would be a wonderful thing for our country is President Trump in the future cherry-picked three female Scalia's who interpret the constitution the way our founding fathers did in the 1700s.

The Democrats are likely going to try to block any male nominee these days, so the only way to avoid it is for Republicans and President Trump to find the most conservative female judges in America and nominate them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2018, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Eastern NC
20,868 posts, read 23,537,374 times
Reputation: 18814
Won't happen. Trump would never nominate a woman seeing how much distain he has for them. He likes white men who manhandles women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Arizona
6,137 posts, read 3,859,906 times
Reputation: 4899
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
Won't happen. Trump would never nominate a woman seeing how much distain he has for them. He likes white men who manhandles women.
Wonder if Sarah Sanders and Candace Owens would agree?

Wonder the percentage of females in North Dakota, Wyoming, West Virginia, Utah who voted for President Trump as oppposed to Clinton.

A vast majority of women outside of the liberal coasts and ultra-liberal big cities voted proudly for President Trump.

2nd highest percentage of female judicial appointments out of the 45 presidents who have served.

How U.S. presidents compare on judicial diversity | Pew Research Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Eureka CA
9,519 posts, read 14,736,406 times
Reputation: 15068
Scalia was a a right-wing jerk. Don't need anymore like him
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:16 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,104,274 times
Reputation: 8527
Scalia's what? Toupee?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:17 PM
 
52,433 posts, read 26,603,454 times
Reputation: 21097
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
Won't happen. Trump would never nominate a woman seeing how much distain he has for them. He likes white men who manhandles women.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Blind rage given as fact.

Trump has already nominated 21 women who have been confirmed to the lower courts. And there are more waiting on confirmation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Eastern NC
20,868 posts, read 23,537,374 times
Reputation: 18814
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Blind rage given as fact.

Trump has already nominated 21 women who have been confirmed to the lower courts. And there are more waiting on confirmation.
Oh wow, 21 out of how many. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:23 PM
 
5,276 posts, read 6,207,341 times
Reputation: 3128
If this is such a grand possibility, why did he nominate Kavanaugh instead of the next Scalia? Bush 2 nominated Alito who is currently the most closely aligned with Scalia and everyone complains about him being a RINO. Reagan, Bush 2, Clinton, and Obama all nominated women.


Also if Kavanagh fails it will be because he lost at least 2 Republican Senators. Although to be hones0 if Kavanagh fails it will probably be because of some stupidity like that Trump rally where he mocked Ford and his supporters chanted lock her up. There are a number of R Senators who have to run in swing states in 2020 and he isn't doing any of them favors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:26 PM
 
19,717 posts, read 10,109,755 times
Reputation: 13074
Amy Coney Barrett is rumored to be the next pick. Don't know much about her but have read she is a right-wing evangelical Christian. She rules according to the Bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2018, 12:27 PM
 
Location: WY
6,259 posts, read 5,066,250 times
Reputation: 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...d-start-woman/

President Trump and Republicans are blessed with the opportunity to give America new judges on federal courts and supreme court justices who will be sitting on the bench in 2050.

Would be one of the best things to ever happen in the history of America if President Trump had lots of young, very conservative female strict constitutionalists sitting on the court for the next 30-50 years that a future Democratic president would be powerless against.

Would be a wonderful thing for our country is President Trump in the future cherry-picked three female Scalia's who interpret the constitution the way our founding fathers did in the 1700s.

The Democrats are likely going to try to block any male nominee these days, so the only way to avoid it is for Republicans and President Trump to find the most conservative female judges in America and nominate them.
No. I didn't agree with voting for a presidential candidate just because she was a woman, and I don't want to engage in gender-politics when it comes to the SC either. We're either equal in this country or we're not. Gender is either a social construct or its not. We either make decisions based on the internal plumbing of candidates or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

I just want good, decent judges. I don't care their gender. I don't. And I don't want us conseratives to start playing the same BS games that liberals do. If we start playing those stupid games, then equality loses and SJW's win. And they don't deserve to win. WE (all of us) deserve better than that.

And not for nothin, but liberal judges will not approve of female conservative judges any more than than they will approve of male conservative judges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top