|
|
|
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:
Five Possible Trump Nominees Who Would Diversify the Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With speculation spreading across Washington about possible Trump administration nominees, at least one concrete list of names is already public: 20 people Trump would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In an unprecedented move, Trump released a list of 11 names in May and 10 more in September, drawn from federal and state courts, as well as one nonjudge: Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who quickly said he was not interested. That leaves 20 judges in the spotlight for a nomination process that is traditionally kept secret until one person is chosen. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/11/2016)
|
| For 8 years we've sacrificed our sovereignty, our national security, and our identity as Americans on the altar of "diversity." If all else is equal, fine, diversify. If not, the best qualified gets the job. This election proves Americans are hungry for a return to rational decision making, not more political correctness. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
