Right now that appears to be the choice--one of the two.
Realistically, while one hopes that principle plays a dominant role in the selection, electoral considerations are bound to play a part. Lagoa, of course, would appeal to many Floridians, and Florida is a supremely important state for Trump.
On the other hand, while Lagoa comes well recommended, her resume is unquestionably on the thin side for a SCOTUS nominee. Nobody really knows that much about her. Barrett has an excellent resume and appears to be a clear favorite among conservatives. She also, by the sheer Middle American normality of her persona, might well appeal to a broad swath of Americans--especially women, and especially in the upper Midwest.
My tendency is to go with Barrett for reasons that don't denigrate Lagoa. It's not Lagoa's fault that she's not more of a known quantity--it takes time on the federal bench to establish the type of credentials that recommend a person for the SCOTUS, and Lagoa simply has not had the bench time or the time in an academic setting to establish a judicial profile to that extent.
I like that Barrett, while having for certain periods of her career been a member of the Federalist Society, is not closely associated with the Libertarian wing of the GOP or the legal establishment. I like her track record on important issues for conservatives: Title IX, Immigation, 2nd Amendment, and 4th Amendment.
John Fund today balances the two: The Two Women at the Top of the Supreme Court List. His conclusion stresses narrow electoral concerns--cementing Florida in the Trump column: "Either Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa would be a strong pick. Timing may favor the latter."
On the other hand, Willis Krumholz at The Federalist pitches strong for Judge Amy:
To Win Re-Election, Trump Should Nominate Amy Coney Barrett
Not only is this the right decision on principle, since judicial nominations are the duty of the president, but it is also the right political move.
He stresses that what I've called the sheer normality of Barrett's persona has very real political benefits, to go with her strong legal credentials: That normality will surely draw out an extreme response from the Dems and their base. Those attacks on Barrett's normality will be self defeating for most of the country, as we saw in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Interestingly, Shipwreckedcrew makes the same point--but in even stronger terms. Initially--and daftly, IMO--he had suggested a woman from the WH Counsel's office, Kate Todd, who appears to be a doctrinaire libertarian without, as one commenter said, a single culturally conservative bone in her body. However, SWC has come around to Judge Amy. A number of his followers suggested that the Dems may be afraid to strongly challenge the Cuban-American Lagoa, whereas they might strongly attack Barrett.
For SWC--and I believe he's right--that's a feature of a Barrett nomination, not a bug:
Amy Coney Barrett over Barbara Lagoa.
Dems might not fight Lagoa, and the electoral benefit of a Kavanaugh 2.0 will be squandered.
They won't be able to resist attacking Barrett.
And we know almost nothing about Lagoa. She spent a decade on a Florida State Appeals court, followed by 15 minutes on the Florida Supreme Court, and less than a year on the 11th Circuit.
I want the opposition. If Mitch has 50 votes, let it be Kavanaugh 2.0 in the Senate. Four Dem Senators got beat in 2018. The House losses would have likely been worse. The smart play for the Dems is to let the nomination go ... and instead make the fight about who gets to choose the nominees to replace Breyer, Thomas, and Alito. Trump could get all 3 of those in a second term. SIX OVERALL.
UPDATE 1: Here's the other argument, advanced by Rush Limbaugh and Don Surber. IMO, this approach would play into the Dems' hands:
ITEM 6: Rush Limbaugh said, "I want the Judiciary Committee hearing [to be] skipped.
"We don't need to open that up for whatever length of time, so that whoever this nominee is can be Kavanaugh'd, or Borked, or Thomas'd. Because that's what it's going to be, especially when it's not even required."
I agree. Tell Democrats to pound salt because they acted so incivil before.
I understand that any hearings may well be unpleasant, but this thinking is politically foolish. The Dems have their stealth candidate in Biden. That's an insult to the American people and an example that GOPers would be ill advised to follow. To do so would be to throw away two golden opportunities just weeks before a national election:
1. The GOP would miss the opportunity to showcase their best face, put their best foot forward, and present their judicial vision for the American future--MAGA from a legal perspective.
2. Equally importantly, they would miss the opportunity to showcase Dem extremism--the raw hatred for all that is good and normal in America. And GOP senators would have the opportunity to show that they're on the side of normality.
In American politics opportunities such as this one are few and far between. IMO, the Senate GOP should seize this opportunity with both hands. And if the Dems back off from a Kavanaugh 2.0, that will simply be a ratification on their part of the reasonability of MAGA.
ADDENDUM: This situation is entirely different in terms of political theater than Barr telling Nadler to pound sand.
UPDATE 2: SWC has his article explaining his position: Pres. Trump and the GOP Should Want This Fight Over the Supreme Court — the Nominee Should Set off a Partisan Brawl. Three key paragraphs:
I give the Democrats in the Senate — especially the morons on the Judiciary Committee — almost no credit for being able to game out the politics of their options. I expect them to go after the nominee in every dishonest, untruthful, and duplicitous way they can, just like they did with Brett Kavanaugh. But I think their chances of stumbling upon a smarter approach go up if the nominee is Judge Lagoa. I think the likelihood that the Democrats commit political seppuku increases significantly if the nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
I’m not sure Judge Barrett is the best selection if your only criteria is who is the best conservative that could be nominated. But as a matter of electoral politics, I see what she represents as a huge bonus for President Trump on November 3 in the places this election will be won. She’s the mother of five biological children, and she and her husband have adopted two other children from Haiti. As such, she is the antithesis of college-educated single and childless females at the heart of the Democrat coalition who overwhelmingly oppose Pres. Trump. So what? He’s not winning their votes no matter what he does.
But at the same time, I believe Judge Barrett reflects in many ways the “highest best” version of how millions of married wives and mothers see themselves and their role in society. These suburban moms have leaked away from Pres. Trump over the past four years. Watching the Democrats in the Committee denigrate Judge Barrett’s accomplishments and her beliefs will work to the benefit of the GOP on election day.
Conservative lawyer, Robert Barnes tweets: "In #Barrett tenure on the bench, she hasn't found a prosecutor she doesn't side with, a corporation she doesn't prefer, or a government action she doesn't approve of. Bad rulings on takings, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, discrimination, and misconduct." Any idea what is going on?ReplyDelete
Are you sure Barnes is really a "conservative" lawyer?Delete
SWC has taken Barnes' attacks apart in pretty embarrassing fashion for Barnes. Barnes seems to get law and facts wrong in his attacks on Barrett.
From Barnes’s own page:Delete
From small-town East Ridge, Tennessee, to the elite environs of the Eastern Ivy league, Robert Barnes walks among the humble and the haughty. Traveling from the everyday to the esteemed, representing clients fighting for their civil rights and celebrities taking on the IRS, Barnes heeds the advice of his newspaper-throwing father, Walter, who was fond of reminding, "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes”.
This guy is a Conservative law guru? Seriously?
"Any idea what is going on?"
Always watch out for steamrollers.
Yes. None of us can be sure that we'll be happy with every Barrett decision if she makes it to the SCOTUS, Barnes' claims seem very much over the top, based on her known record. He clearly seems to have hijacked a steamroller and is on a jihad for reasons that aren't entirely clear. But probably don't withstand scrutiny.Delete
Where do these “experts” come from? Who vets them?Delete
Trump has Florida already locked up. Reports to the contrary are only to help maintain media ratings.ReplyDelete
And that's another strong argument in favor of Judge Amy.Delete
I don’t do pundits so the Barneses and the Andy McCarthys (the latter says Trump could lose if he goes for a SCOTUS nomination now) land on very deaf ears here. I can see one thing that could bother some - Barrett’s People for Praise organization that some might believe could be too controlling. Speaking in tongues and such are ay out on the perimeter for many. But Barrett has the credentials. Trump needs a quick, clean confirmation. That could mean Lagoa. Or maybe someone we are not thinking about.ReplyDelete
It does give me pause. But this is where we are and I'm confident that the only tongue she'll use in the senate and on the SCOTUS will be English. She's good at that.Delete
Spelling: "That's and insult to the American people and and example that GOPers...."Delete
I'll bet you meant "
That's AN insult to the American people AN and example".
On Barrett, "Speaking in *tongues* and such are out on the *perimeter*", to *mainstream* Catholics (the main US swing demographic, esp. in the Midwest)?
How far out?
(Spoiler: News'weak' does not, in fact, "regret" the "error")Delete
Ha! Thanks for that. My wife sent me the News'weak' article this afternoon. It made zero sense if you've read about the People of Praise and about the book. Clearly no connection.Delete
Here is the wild card I could not remember earlier:ReplyDelete
From North Carolina, she is now being shown on Fox Business along with Barrett and Lagoa.
Choosing her when everyone is wranging over Barrett v. Lagoa would be rather Trumpian...
Except for this ...Delete
a volunteer legal adviser for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
OK, I recognize her now.Delete
Rushing was a law student intern at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. Rushing wrote at least three amicus briefs supporting the ADF's positions, co-wrote a legal brief on religious liberties with an ADF attorney, and spoke at ADF events at least once per year from 2012 to 2017.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of advocating, training, and funding on the issues of "religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family".
Before aNM swoops down, that should have been wrangling…but you knew that. :)Delete
Could dangling Rushing out there have been what finally brought Mitt around? Have only seen that in the last couple of days.Delete
@Bebe: Funny... "Before aNM swoops down"...Delete
Relative to Mitt though... he only came around when the limelight was centered on him. Has to be the center of attention. So he waited his turn.
I'm only a fan of confirming a new justice promptly--but I would say skipping Committee hearings would be a mistake. It's too easy to make political hay from altering the practices of the Senate. Such change turns it to the benefit Dems--"What's the rush, what are you hiding?" It gives Dems a nail to hammer. For the November election. Unnecessarily.ReplyDelete
I agree, but a circus like last confirmation must not be permitted. I think especially if it is ACB, in consideration of her recent confirmation for circuit court and in light of how the last process went, the GOP has every right to ensure an expedient process.Delete
According to John Fund for National Review:ReplyDelete
Her academic writings indicate that she’s pro-life. But Bloomberg Law reports that in a 2013 speech she said:
The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.
I believe that's more in the nature of a prediction on where the court was headed in 2013 than her own sentiment. Even ueber liberal Larry Tribe has said that Roe v. Wade is a disaster from a ConLaw standpoint.Delete
Anyone who was going to base their vote on getting SCOTUS nominees to uphold Roe v. Wade were going to vote Democrat regardless before Ginsburg died, and are almost certainly going to turn out after regardless of whether or whom Trump nominates. So might as well get the best Justice we can confirmed before election day.ReplyDelete
I agree w/ SWC analysis. Best we can hope for is a Senate fight where Dem Senators, esp the VP nominee, make asses of themselves attacking a candidate in a way that turns off independents for whom Roe is a secondary priority if it's on the list at all.
Still kind of a dick move for us to ask ACB to do this though. Like telling a guy on patrol to move forward to draw fire so we can locate and kill the enemy sniper.
"Still kind of a dick move for us to ask ACB to do this though."
In the real world, the kind of attack launched on Kavanaugh does permanent damage to the targets (victims) and their families. Especially their children.
It is asking a lot to ask ACB to submit to this.
Trust her to make the right decision for herself. I'm sure that's a big part of the reason the President personally meets with potential nominees.Delete
Its not binary. She may well decide to go forward. But the cost may still be excessive. Ask Brett Kavanaugh.Delete
@Cassander; True but she seems willing to take one for the team. Paybacks are hell in the form of Trump election win and possibly more Judges confirmed. Fingers crossed.Delete
Graham’s focus should be on reminding the voters and the senators what happened in the Kavanaugh case and then making clear that this will be a civilized hearing or it will come to an end. Maybe there will be a better way of punishing hoaxes, stunts and over the top theatrics than ending the hearings, but the point is Graham has to have everyone on a short leash.ReplyDelete
One more point: left to her own devices, Kamala Harris is incapable of looking good in the hearings. I’m sure a way will be found to aid her in an way possible, probably to include writing her prepared remarks, giving her juicy questions to ask, and coaching her up as best they can. And of course the media will be its usual sycophantic self. Times 10.
She’ll still find a way to look bad, I imagine, but not for lack of help from her many and powerful friends.
There is a already a very good way to deter Kavanaugh - esque theatrics: prosecute CBF for perjury. But that would open a can of worms - beach friends and all that.Delete
Swamp gonna swamp, you'd be naive to assume otherwise.
True regarding Graham. I question if Kamala Harris will even participate. She might be busy on the campaign trail knowing it's a done deal or to a lesser extent embarrass herself.Delete
Any nominee will be put through the grinder with varying intensity. Hold the hearings, but perhaps do something with the process(length of questioning)ReplyDelete
if at all possible to restrain the Dems’ worst impulses. They will scream no matter what so hopefully use her recent confirmation process to limit their ability
to grandstand and, more importantly, not subject the nominee or her family to any more pain than necessary. After their treatment of Barr, they can have it shoved right back at them by limiting them in this hearing.
I'm not sure I see it that way depending on how close the election polls are showing. If it's really tight I see the Dem's whipping through this pretty quickly so they can get out and support their campaigns or campaign on behalf of others.Delete
Similar to a defense allowing a team to score at will inside the 5 yard line with less than a minute to go so their offense can get back on the field and get a game winning FG at the end before the clock winds down.
End of the day though, she does have to be asked, and if she's as smart as we say she is she knows the consequences for saying "yes."ReplyDelete
And as much as the other side loves to frame the President's "transactional view of politics" as a bad thing, and as much as I was inclined to agree with that view until the last couple years, the fact is he does approach meetings like he is reported to have had with ACB as transactions. And he can be remarkably frank--if she's the nominee he will have told her that the Democratic defamation of her and her family is anticipated and factored into GOP electoral strategy, and she will have had to affirmatively agree to take the post notwithstanding.
Terrible we have to confront good people with these kinds of decisions. I refused to be confirmed as a teenager because I'm too much of a skeptic and iconoclast. But I want more than anything to be Catholic now just so I know there is a hell to accommodate Schumer, Harris, et al...
I'm an atheist, so I want the Dems to be in hell right here on earth, right now. I will drink from the tears of liberal despair at RBG being replaced by a conservative.Delete
Well, I'm not Catholic but I would love to see them all writhing in Purgatorial agony watching the GOP retake the House, hold the Senate (Cocaine Mitch installing a conveyor belt to handle judge confirmations), a conservative majority on the SCOTUS, and four more years of Trump.Delete
"I love the smell of electoral napalm in early November. It smells like - Victory."
"What is good in life?
To vote their Representatives from office,
realign the judiciary,
and hear the lamentations of their MSM stooges.
"I'm an atheist, so I want the Dems to be in hell right here on earth, right now."Delete
Pretty sure God wants that, too. I mean, His timing was outta this world...
Ba dum bum tssss!
According to CNN, it’s already in the bag ...ReplyDelete
Trump's nominee is a lock to win confirmation. Democrat abuse of the nominee will not help them with the suburban woman vote.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately we have to recognize that whatever their going to do they'd better git'er done. NC, PA, MI, & WI have been basically gifted to the Dem's through courts and agreements allowing ballot harvesting and counting votes 4eva.ReplyDelete
"NC, PA, MI, & WI have been basically gifted to the Dem's".ReplyDelete
Doesn't DJT's campaign aim to appeal those rulings, if they're so devastating?
That's what I've been puzzling over. Or whether DoJ might be able to get involved.Delete
Right now, Laura has on a lawyer talking about this (incl. the GOP plan to appeal to SCoTUS).Delete
Ballot harvesting is antithetical to democracy. It has historically been mainly used for those in the military overseas and others not living in the US.ReplyDelete
It is not surprising the Democrats would use and expand this. It is the best thing to allow voter fraud than the notorious mechanical voting machine.
Obama attempted to make the Democrat party the sole political party of the United States by force (not physical) of the US government and did it all throughout his presidency.
In some ways, Obama and the Democrats can be seem as “jumping the shark.” Problem is that way too many people want to be lorded.
Freedom is scary. It inherently means inequality. Ironically, so does every other system out there, but the others make you feel better about the utter, disgusting use of government to oppress you.
Just wait until the Left starts trying to mainstream "ballot interpreting" as totes legit.Delete
My last post had some typo/grammatical errors ...ReplyDelete
My point is this ...
The Democrat party is and always been about oppression, subjugation, slavery, and totalitarianism.
It is the party that created the environment and actually started the US Civil War over slavery.
For 100 years after the Civil War, the Democrat party denied blacks their civil rights enacted by Republicans all over the South. Supposedly, history began in 1964. Pure, utter, bull crud!
Sorry, blacks in the US, you are not unique, but the norm. While blacks where being enslaved from Africa to the Americas, whites were being enslaved by blacks in Africa. Hello, Barbary Pirates.
But, this is of no matter. Slavery, oppression, despotism, totalitarianism, etc is a humanistic trait engrained in our DNA. It’s a fact that the BLM ignore, no, not just ignore, but hide, purposely because they want to lord over you.
The US Constitution is truly unique. Granted, it’s execution has been typical, but it gives all a chance at a good life.
The Lefties keep on making it clearer, that they're at war vs. the Const. as we know it.Delete
From https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/cnns-don-lemon-unhinged-were-going-to-have-to-blow-up-the-entire-system/ :
" “We’re going to have to blow up the entire system,” *Lemon* said.
“I don’t know about that,” Cuomo reacted, who argued that Americans just have to vote."
"While blacks where being enslaved from Africa to the Americas, whites were being enslaved by blacks in Africa. Hello, Barbary Pirates"Delete
Don't forget that all the blacks brought to America were caught and traded by other blacks in Africa, and sold to whites.
And don't forget the 100 million people enslaved by Muslims after 600AD all over the world.
Truly, no race is unique.
But only the US went to war to free people from slavery.
What I am saying is greater than this one fight over a Supreme Court justice, but is integral.ReplyDelete
The Republican is not righteous, though. It traded it’s very being for National Unity.
The South, that is the Democrat controlled South, should have been occupied and controlled to submission, However, that did not occur.
Republicans, a truly firebrand party birthed in abolition of slavery, made a Faustian bargain that allowed the Democrats to create Segregation.
It took till this year, 2020, for a small city in North Texas to get rid of it’s commemoration to the Confederate Soldier that had a white drinking fountain and a black drinking fountain. This memorial, like most in the South, was promoted and helped funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy. It’s the same town that it’s woman’s college, Texas Woman’s University, made sure an entire black section of town was displaced over “safety.”
All throughout this, Republicans rejected their heritage for power.
I am truly angry at the Republican party, but realize it is the only party today that stops the United States from being a UN prefecture controlled by Germany.
That is not a function of the Republican party, they, generally appear to rather want that, but of Trump,
"controlled by Germany", not by ChiComs?Delete
Good point aNanyMouse.Delete
In July 2018, John Brennan said, after the President of the United States met with the President of Russia:
"Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin".
Since when does the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who is ostensibly privy to all of our nation's secrets, but without offering any supporting evidence, accuse the sitting President of the United States of criminal malfeasance and treason?
And get away with it?
Which John Brennan? The incompetent one who still somehow doesn't know "Trump-Russia collusion" was a massive fraud orchestrated by the candidate he supported? Or the mendacious one who does know it was a fraud, but nonetheless continues to publicly malign its target?Delete
Right. Which former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States? The incompetent one or the mendacious one? These are the only two choices. Except for the John Brennan who is both incompetent and mendacious.
In case you're interested, the Hunter Biden report is out.ReplyDelete
Essentially what this tells us is that Trump and the campaign will be using the Biden family corruption issue for the rest of the campaign, probably including in the debates.Delete
I'm thinking this is what Lindsey Graham was referring to a week or so ago.Delete
Looks like it.Delete
It’s not just the Hunter Biden report. It hits Joe pretty hard and mentions some sketchy $$$$ business with his brother James and his wife. And Devan Archer, John Kerry’s stepson, is right in there. It is a long investigative report. I imagine PDJT is smiling as it totally puts the lie to those who said he had committed an impeachable offense by calling new President Zelensky of Ukraine. I hope now that we will hear no more from pompous Vindman.Delete
The important thing is that it gives Trump something official to hang his hat on re Biden corruption for the rest of the campaign. I expect to be hearing a lot about this.Delete
Meanwhile, in June Barr said that he expects there to be “developments” in U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the Russia investigation this summer.ReplyDelete
He said: "I expect that we will have some developments, hopefully before the end of the summer."
Yesterday, summer 2020 ended.
Friday night - it’s Barrett!ReplyDelete
Tired of seeing this idiocy headlined: "Majority of Americans think winner of presidential election should select Supreme Court nominee, poll finds"ReplyDelete
NEWSFLASH FOR MORONS: In accordance with the Constitution, the president nominates Supreme Court justices. Donald J. Trump is the president because he won the election. In other words, the winner of the presidential election IS selecting the SCOTUS nominee. That's how it works. The Constitution doesn't give a rat's ass about your poll.