IMO Trump should nominate Barbara Lagoa


"Barbara Lagoa (born November 2, 1967)  is an American lawyer and a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Prior to becoming a federal judge, she was the first Hispanic woman to be appointed as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Florida."   wiki


IMO Trump should nominate this highly qualified Latina jurist who happens to be a Floridian.  He should do it as soon as Justice Ginsburg's funeral is done and well before the election.  pl

This entry was posted in government, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to IMO Trump should nominate Barbara Lagoa

  1. Deap says:

    Two Latina jurists on the high court? As long as we are still asked to slice and dice by ethnicity Proven Ideological balance is crucial; but not skin color identity, nor even gender or electoral college advantage.
    May we get the best candidate and may Kamala Harris make a fool of herself again during the confirmation hearings.

  2. A. Pols says:

    I don’t know much about her beyond a brief read this morning. But I agree he should appoint someone, if not her, and he should do it quickly. If RBG’s funeral ends up being unduly delayed for some reason, I think he should do it before, the better to sharpen focus during the critical 6 weeks before the election. If the appointment happens early enough, maybe the Democrats will stir up more civil disorder over the matter and clarify the choice for some fence sitters by Nov. 3. As a former Democrat who voted twice for Obama, but not for Hillary, I now support Trump’s reelection despite his flaws. Democrats have gone off the rails and now pose a danger to actual Democracy in this country.

  3. Diana Croissant says:

    I read only what I could find on the Internet in regard to Lagoa. She is comparatively young. That is a good thing, I think, IF she is a true Constitutional conservative.
    I also don’t like “identity” politics. However, I would have liked to see that she had a record on some issues that are important to me–abortion especially, and especially late-term abortion. It has always been sad to me that the right to obtain birth-control did not also then limit the right to abortion in some ways. This, I think, is a major issue since Ginsberg’s nomination to the Supreme Court was, in the minds of many feminists, a victory for women’s right to birth control and thus freedom from back-alley abortions.
    From my experience living in an area with a large Hispanic population, abortion is not usually an acceptable alternative to using birth control in those communities. In fact, in many Hispanic families, even using birth control is not often acceptable since many are practicing Catholics.
    I am Protestant Christian. Her attitude toward the lives of those who are in the womb but not yet born is extremely important to me. Maybe she has just not yet had to rule on that issue in a court case. But I would like to know her record on these topics, if she has one.
    She would be replacing Ginsberg, and older feminists will want to know her thoughts on these issues. Most of those older feminists would probably hold quite different opinions that I have on these issues.
    In any case, I want Trump to jump quickly to nominate someone to replace Ginsberg.

  4. turcopolier says:

    Hey! She is 53 years old and a conservative Hispanic from Florida. Do the math!

  5. Polish Janitor says:

    Or Amy Coney Barrett?
    She’s a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, strong ‘originalist’ credentials, Notre Dame University, and comfortably pro-life.
    I read on NPR that on two separate occasions in 2011 and 2013, Obama admin repeatedly asked RBG to retire, so he could nominate a younger liberal judge while the WH and Senate were still in Dems’ hands, but she wouldn’t budge.

  6. Bobo says:

    Amy Coney Barrett is 48 with 7 children and not an Ivy League grad even better and a solid pick. It’s going to be a big fight so you might as well have your strongest contender ready to go into battle. Florida is already sown up for Trump so he does not need that pick. The Hispanics understand the value of Trump – jobs, jobs, jobs – plus they understand even better the evils of abortion and the psychological drain on a woman. If there is going to be a fight go with your best.
    Barbara Lagoa is an excellent backup but does not have the legal stature of Barrett.

  7. turcopolier says:

    ACB better have very thick skin. The Notre Dame stuff will not go down well with the heathen section of the Democratic Party. OTOH it would be fun to watch Harris make an ass of herself again.

  8. Ray says:

    To Deap: Why do you assume that we’re dicing by ethnicity? It’s impossible in your mind that Barbara Lagoa might have the qualifications for the job? Was Judge Scalia chosen because he’s an Italian-American? All in all, we’ve had 8 Jewish supreme court justices. Were they chosen because of their ethnicity?
    Although the common misconception is to group all Hispanics in together as one mass of unindistinguishable people, there is a vast difference between the 20+ nationalities that make up Spain and Latin America. Differences in race [some are white, some are black, some are mixed, to wit, Barbara Lagoa is a white Cuban of European extraction], socio-economic background and political leaning. Other than being a woman and coming from a Spanish speaking background, Lagoa has very little in common with Sotomayor. Most importantly, Lagoa is conservative like most Cuban Americans who differ from other Hispanics in that they are Repubicans and solidly Middle Class. Yet, you are assuming that if Logoa is chosen, there will be no difference between her and Sotomayor. Bigoted misconceptions are sadly still alive and thriving.

  9. Deap says:

    Roe vs Wade is not really about abortion. It is about an activist court making up a “constitutional right” that is not expressly granted by the US constitution. There no express “right of privacy” that drove this SCOTUS decision.
    So the issue is not pro or anti-abortion ever – it is finding an accurate US Constitutional underpinning to allow the taking of a life as the “law of the land”. States can do whatever they want on this issue, according to their own electorate wishes.
    But making “abortion” the federal law of the land is bogus on every level. Making pro or anti- “abortion” a judicial litmus test is even more heinous. It should be about the US Constitution, first last and always. And not appointing judges who just make things up for their own social agenda. Leave that issue to the states and their voters, as required by the Constitution.

  10. TV says:

    None of the people screaming about a nomination will vote for Trump anyway, so go ahead and jump in feet first.

  11. Deap says:

    No track record for this candidate besides legal musical chairs – obviously seen as talented, but needs far more seasoning in place on the bench with a solid paper trail of published decisions..

  12. Jim says:

    1973 Roe v. Wade was and remains a blight on the court and this nation.
    Were it not, we’d all long forgotten about it.
    Upper class white women wanted and got abortion to become a rational form of birth control, and they got it.
    And these them pretended they were doing it for all the poor black women.
    They were virtue signaling back then too.
    RBG criticized the decision, not because she disagreed with it; rather, because it made the US Supreme Court a target.
    To this day, many Americans and many jurists and many Catholics, among others, remain appalled that five justices deemed unto themselves when life begins.
    RBG, though not on court at time, has argued for years, including within the past year, that it would have been a better outcome for the court had they first only extended abortion to include, not just life threat to pregnant woman, but to babies conceived via rape and incest, for instance.
    In other words, to, over time, expand the allowances for permitting abortions.
    Piecemeal. She said this would have attenuated anger at the court and not have made it such a direct target.
    Were Trump to nominate RBG, as it were: Democrats would all oppose her.
    Were he to nominate Jesus Christ, ditto.
    I suspect whoever is nominated will be confirmed by a 51-50 vote. Prior to Nov. 3.
    And, the pick is already known to party leadership.
    If Trump can be impeached during an election year, everything is permitted.
    This is payback by Republicans against how Democrats treated Kavanaugh. End of story.

  13. turcopolier says:

    None of that matters compared to the need to carry Florida.

  14. Deap says:

    One does not want another Roberts or Souter, simply as a potential trade off for “electoral votes” that may not be in jeopardy.
    Let’s see who else is on the list – I was impressed early with the gentleman who is from Indian heritage, which I use only as an identifier and not for “diversity” considerations since I can’t remember this name. On another “short list” though gender will probably be an issue.
    So we are are all slicing and dicing over something. Including their judicial temperment and published record of their legal decision making – not the outcomes per se, but the process by which they reached their conclusions – either minority or majority opinions. What drives them, what are their core beliefs, how do they make their rulings understandable to both the winners and the losers.
    Unlike Biden who had to go with the only “woman of color” left standing, for his VP after his parade of horribles, Trump does have an embarrassment of riches from which to choose, including this woman from Florida. I am not ready to accept craven political quid pro quos as a qualification for a lifetime SCOTUS seat. Mainly because Trump does not have to compromise.

  15. turcopolier says:

    Listen closely you arrogant ass. If you ever imply again that I am “craven” you will be finished here. You may think your motives are grand but if Trump loses Florida because of naïve simpletons like you …

  16. Deap says:

    I don’t want to lose either. Hoping for a win-win and not waking up later to another Souter or Roberts. Who will be in place long after 2024. Clearly one of Trump’s most lasting legacies will have been the shift in the federal bench. Which will last a lot longer than Barry’s short-lived legacy Iran deal. Sorry if I mispoke. It was a moment of professional defense and was never intended to be personal; in retrospect I see I over spoke. Just fresh off watching The Great Courses on The Federalist Papers and tonight’s edition was ironically on The Judiciary.

  17. turcopolier says:

    What profession is that?

  18. morongobill says:

    Regarding the Jesus Christ nomination, may I point out that his obvious anger management issues with the religious and financial establishment would evoke total condemnation from both political parties.
    Barabbas would have a better chance of being confirmed.

  19. BillWade says:

    In my area of SW Florida I am seeing support for Biden whereas in 2016 there was virtually zero support for the Hildebeast. We’ve also had a large influx of Puerto Ricans due to a hurricane and they all vote straight Dem. The good news is that Gov DeSantis has been great with getting things open and people back to work, I imagine this will give President Trump a boost here,sure hope so. We had a very close call in the 2016 governor race and I’d bet if the meth head that almost won was in power we’d be locked down tight here.

  20. turcopolier says:

    Incomprehensible. “Jesus Christ” nomination? What are you talking about?

  21. Deap says:

    Members of the bar are sworn officers of the court. Wiki provides a decent definition of this professional duty:
    “…. In common law jurisdictions, the generic term officer of the court is applied to all those who, in some degree in the function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a part in the legal system. Officers of the court should not be confused with court officers, the law enforcement personnel who work in courts.
    Officers of the court have legal and ethical obligations. They are tasked to participate to the best of their ability in the functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.”….
    Signed: Member of the California Bar and five year Judge Pro Tem. (Retired)

  22. Benjamin says:

    She has not claimed to be pro life. That is a problem. It does not have to a based on ethnic identity. Thats a very bad way of selecting the right candidate.

  23. J says:

    Crowd Begins Chanting “Fill The Seat” at Trump Rally in North Carolina – President Trump Announces He Will Name Nominee this Week – A WOMAN
    Light the fires, and kick the tires….

  24. TV says:

    A lawyer, from California no less, who is NOT a Democrat.
    A pig just flew past my window.

  25. Deap says:

    At least we know Kamala Harris cannot accuse “her” of back seat rapes. Though I put nothing past Harris.

  26. morongobill says:

    Somebody mentioned JC and I was making a poor joke re: cleaning the money lenders out of the temple etc.

  27. Deap says:

    TV, the Smithsonian recently notified me they want my remains for their embalmed endangered species collection. Future generations might be able to figure out where I went wrong.

  28. Mark says:

    Not enough is known about Barbara Lagoa. She could definitely be another Sandra Day O’Connor all over again. Pick Amy Coney Barrett!!!!

Comments are closed.