8
8
0
The commentary after the swipe is what should be listened to. And he is on point. Not one Republican said a word about trump saying he would nominate a woman, nor did they say anything about the FACT and the female he nominated was and is not qualified to sit on the highest Court in our Country! She had never even tried or taken a case to an appeal before being nominated! No experience whatsoever!!!!
Supreme Court
Joe Biden
Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
How is she not qualified? What are the qualifications? Where are they written?
There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree. So, she was and is 100% qualified to sit on the court.
Maybe no one on the right on the hill said anything, just like no one on the left in the hill is saying anything now. I know plenty of people, left and right, who think these qualifiers, gender and color, are stupid and wrong.
There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree. So, she was and is 100% qualified to sit on the court.
Maybe no one on the right on the hill said anything, just like no one on the left in the hill is saying anything now. I know plenty of people, left and right, who think these qualifiers, gender and color, are stupid and wrong.
(5)
(0)
SGT Tim. Wilson
Using qualifiers have been used for year’s. Right or wrong they have been used for a long time. And right now, the potential nominees that President Biden has chosen are more than qualified and two of them have already been through a nomination process and put in their current positions.
You are 100% correct there are no standing requirements for being a Supreme Court Justice! Funny you would think that there would be some basic requirements set in writing but there’s not and I still stand by my earlier assessment of Justice Barrett, I personally do not believe she is qualified to sit on ANY bench let alone the highest in the land.
And truthfully, there should be NO politics in selecting or being a Justice on any bench but unfortunately that is not the way it is.
Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason! They should not lean one way or another, or have affiliations with one party or the other!
In fact a resume should be submitted for examination, no identifying details whatsoever and the best resumes chosen to be investigated. Then the top three given to the President who can choose which one from those three that he wants to put on the bench. And that’s it! No wasteful hearings that are only fueled by politics and BS!
I also don’t think it should be a lifetime appointment either, 10 years max and then they retire. Just like politicians shouldn’t get more than two terms PERIOD, whether they serve those two terms in a row or not doesn’t matter two terms! Then their done. Go do something else with your life and not be a drain on the public!
But then they shouldn’t be able to give themselves raises either, don’t get me started.
You are 100% correct there are no standing requirements for being a Supreme Court Justice! Funny you would think that there would be some basic requirements set in writing but there’s not and I still stand by my earlier assessment of Justice Barrett, I personally do not believe she is qualified to sit on ANY bench let alone the highest in the land.
And truthfully, there should be NO politics in selecting or being a Justice on any bench but unfortunately that is not the way it is.
Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason! They should not lean one way or another, or have affiliations with one party or the other!
In fact a resume should be submitted for examination, no identifying details whatsoever and the best resumes chosen to be investigated. Then the top three given to the President who can choose which one from those three that he wants to put on the bench. And that’s it! No wasteful hearings that are only fueled by politics and BS!
I also don’t think it should be a lifetime appointment either, 10 years max and then they retire. Just like politicians shouldn’t get more than two terms PERIOD, whether they serve those two terms in a row or not doesn’t matter two terms! Then their done. Go do something else with your life and not be a drain on the public!
But then they shouldn’t be able to give themselves raises either, don’t get me started.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Used by presidents for years and wrong each time, SGT Tim. Wilson. If someone would be outraged if the president “my nominee will be a white man” they should be just as outraged at “my nominee will be a black woman”. They are 100% the same. 100% wrong. It was wrong when “my guy” did it and it’s wrong when “your guy” does it. The reason I know there are zero qualification requirements for a SCOTUS nominee is because I thought the same thing about Barrett. I was wrong. She is completely qualified, according to the Constitution.
I lean more toward the lifetime appointments, simply because we have decided as a Nation, the judicial branch is “most important”. It isn't, they’re equal branches, but for some reason people have decided they are the end-all of our political system. With it being viewed this way, long term stability is important. We have stupid politicians serving 40, 50, 60 years. Continuing to push their stupidity. Having justices familiar with their idiocy, and knowing to keep them in check, is a good thing. If they’re going to be appointed every 6-12 years, May as well put them on the ballot.
I lean more toward the lifetime appointments, simply because we have decided as a Nation, the judicial branch is “most important”. It isn't, they’re equal branches, but for some reason people have decided they are the end-all of our political system. With it being viewed this way, long term stability is important. We have stupid politicians serving 40, 50, 60 years. Continuing to push their stupidity. Having justices familiar with their idiocy, and knowing to keep them in check, is a good thing. If they’re going to be appointed every 6-12 years, May as well put them on the ballot.
(1)
(0)
SGT Tim. Wilson
SFC (Join to see) You make a valid point regarding lifetime appointments.
And I think my idea of no identifying resumes would settle the whole argument.
And I think my idea of no identifying resumes would settle the whole argument.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
They are both qualified, MSG Joseph Cristofaro. We’ve just become so accustomed to seeing appellate or circuit court judges nominated, we started believing it was a requirement.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
Look. We know the exact reason for the outrage. Let's not tap dance around it with kid gloves.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google