2 ms·
>we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist. Of course that's true. All judges are picked for their
by Clubber 3y ago
>we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist.
Of course that's true. All judges are picked for their political bias. If you want to argue that she's unqualified, I refer you to the ABA assessment which disagrees.
- ModernMech 3y agoMy point is that discussing her qualifications is irrelevant. If she were there to be a judge, then her qualifications as a jurist might matter. But she's not there to be a judge, she's there to be a political operative. I know it, you know it, Senate Republicans know it, the plaintiffs pleading cases before her know it, and (most importantly) she knows it. So why the hell is anyone talking about her qualifications as a jurist? In her role on the Supreme Court, her only role that matters, she's a political operative, and she behaves as such. Accordingly, that's the only lens under which she should be analyzed. The ABA has nothing relevant to say about her.
- Clubber 3y ago>But she's not there to be a judge, she's there to be a political operative. What does that mean exactly?