A SCOTUS Opening

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're digging too deeply, Trump is a shallow guy.  She was recommended by people he trusted.  She's a woman (no longer a redundant statement), she's religious and she's conservative.  She ticks off every box for him.  I know the theory that she's a reliable vote in his corner in the result of a disputed election, but would that not be a concern for anyone Trump nominated at this point?  If her being a complete activist, and not a judge in the traditional and desired sense, was a major concern then the Dem senators would have been all over it during the confirmation process.  As I stated previously, Barrett didn't give anyone a reason to not vote for her on a personal level and I think the Dems basically conceded that and went for political posturing during the hearings.

Shallow as he may be, Trump fights for his power, relates all political judgments to retaining power. He may be incapable of grasping legal norms and arguments, but he is certainly calculating polls and base support and the stock market with every appointment he makes. Months out from the election he was already breaking the post office and suing states like PA for "voter fraud." The Republican party is working overtime to inhibit mail in balloting in support of their candidate. Why would he suddenly change character with the chance to appoint a judge who might be ruling on the election he is already calling "rigged"? The most important "box" Trump wants ticked off is not "religious and conservative."

Trump farmed out his legal judgment to the Federalist Society for sure (and the choice of Barrett is as much McConnell's as his), but that doesn't mean he would nominate anyone who might be a danger to him should the election be thrown to the courts. He has made it abundantly clear that nine justices will likely be "needed" for this election. It is unimaginable that his legal team has not gamed an election thrown to the courts and who might be the best fit for their interests.

The conservative fight to create a 6-3 conservative court was not a battle to get judges on board who would just "follow the law," or they'd be happy with another  Roberts. It has been an effort to confirm people who would rule in Conservatives favor on a range of issues, from campaign finance to gay rights to Roe v Wade. Given the unpredictability of past appointments, the goal has been to identify and nominate judges who would be "consistent"--people who cannot say for sure that Brown vs Board was correctly decided.  And that is why Barrett was chosen. While insisting that a judge's personal preferences/values should play no role in legal decisions, she will shift the court dramatically rightward in case after case, making the court the final bastion of minority rule if Republicans lose Congress and the Exec.