|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Who Do Insiders Think Trump Will Select for the Supreme Court?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Using LexPredict's FantasySCOTUS, a Supreme Court prediction market I created in 2009, I surveyed more than a hundred Federalist Society lawyers about who they think President Trump will nominate. (USA Today has already featured our odds). As they swiped their favorite candidate on my iPad, each attorney explained the pros and cons of the short list. The results, which fall into three categories—the front runners, the Kennedy clerks, and the dark horses—provide insights into a process shrouded in secrecy. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(11/24/2016)
|
| If Obama had any brains, he's appoint the worst or the least healthy candidate on Trump's public list and try to get confirmation before Inauguration Day. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
