Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours ago, John Adams said:


Interesting graphic. Few justices with practical experience. 

 

“If it functioned the way it’s supposed to.” So, as the highest appellate court in the land with little original jurisdiction? What is this B word on about?
 

The only experience that is actually relevant to the job, it could be argued, is a seat on an appeals court. Which all but one person in that chart did before their appointment. 

Posted
4 hours ago, LeviF said:

 

“If it functioned the way it’s supposed to.” So, as the highest appellate court in the land with little original jurisdiction? What is this B word on about?
 

The only experience that is actually relevant to the job, it could be argued, is a seat on an appeals court. Which all but one person in that chart did before their appointment. 


Barrett was not particularly well qualified. A strange choice. 

Posted
34 minutes ago, John Adams said:


Barrett was not particularly well qualified. A strange choice. 


Honestly we’re reaching a point where the H or Y bombs are meaningless and that’s the only glaring thing missing from her resume. Nearly three years in the court of appeals compared to Jackson’s nine months or whatever. Regardless of how noble they might be, serving as a public defender or on the sentencing commission are not qualifications or even experience relevant to the position. 
 

Kagan was a bad choice, solicitor general be damned. But she’s held her own anyway. People make a big deal out of it but the reality is there are far more people able to do the job than will ever get a chance to. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, John Adams said:


Barrett was not particularly well qualified. A strange choice. 

 

Why?  She had the same career path as the majority did.

Posted
1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The worst SCOTUS nominee I’ve ever seen, hands down. She’s not only disingenuous ( can’t define a woman, no judicial philosophy etc) but downright un American. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

I find her light sentences for pedophiles concerning but not disqualifying. The only thing about her that would make me consider voting against her is her is her not answering the natural rights question. She should be able to state openly people have natural rights.

Posted
On 3/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, DRsGhost said:

 

She also said that she, a woman,  can't define what a woman is because she is not a biologist.

 

That answer is going to get her in trouble with the lunatic base because it implies that gender is a matter of biological science and not simply a social contruct.

 

Well, at least WOMAN has been defined by the cult...  smfh

 

 

 

×
×
  • Create New...