Applewood wrote:
"I realize more than a few people here had their preferences and perhaps they are disappointed that their "guy" or "gal" wasn't picked."
The Barrett gal wasn't going to be picked this time, even though she was on "the short list". She was just there "for show" -- THIS time.
I posted why this would happen several times, and no one took me seriously.
Except, perhaps, Mr. Trump. (heh)
He knows when it will be time to "use her"...
...when the first "female vacancy" opens up. That could be either Ginsburg or Sotomayor, as yet unknown.
This way, the cry "you misogynist Republicans are replacing a woman with a man!" argument will be rendered moot.
"A woman for a woman".
As simple as it gets.
Judge Kavanaugh seems ok.
If his judicial temperament falls into the realm between, say, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, we'll do just fine.
I've read (just briefly) that's he VERY strong on the Second Amendment. That's going to be a BIG issue before the Court over the next two or three decades.
Abortion?
Doesn't matter.
He'll testify that he accepts "stare decisis" and that should be that.
I've gone on record in the forum before as to why Roe v. Wade isn't going to be thrown out, even by the most conservative Court one could imagine.
As the old Pogo comic strip once noted, "The Supreme Court follows the illiction returns...!"
And if Republicans want to keep winning elections, if they know what's good for them, they'll just leave that tar baby be.
