the question has two answers, are the qualifications they list correct, yes. are they something that should disqualify her as a nomination, or even out of line with other modern nominations, maybe. do i support her in any case, no.

but like i asked earlier, how much of a qualification is 15 years of teaching constitutional and federal law in the Ivy league, imo thats bigtime.

Most of the reasons I personally would disqualify on are not on that list. But I'm fairly alone in most of them.

They used to be, but these days they shill for corporations and defend the center-right corporate establishment Democrat agenda.

i think disqualifying a partisan judge is the other side of the coin of nominating a partisan judge.

but, if its about qualifications as the list suggests, how important is a long standing career as a professor of the exact type of law the SCOTUS handles in Ivy League schools?

i remember people saying obama should be a scotus judge, and when it was pointed out his qualifications are like ACB's (although even worse objectively), his law experience academically was given as a justification.

but a long standing lawyer, who was never a politician, who was a 7th circuit court judge, and an Ivy League renowned law expert in federal and constitutional law certainly cant be written off simply because she has not been in a SCOTUS case as counsel.

edit: its interesting because ive thought for a long time SCOTUS judges shouldnt be long standing judges or trial lawyers, but rather legal experts. the SCOTUS isn't strictly a court that decides cases, its a court that decides laws. i still dont like ACB much, but shes the exact type of person i like for the SCOTUS in qualifications. i dont want someone who did 20 years as a prosecutor and then 20 years as a sitting judge, they're too engrained in courtroom culture and norms.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 27 2020 12:35pm

ScotusBlog has similar info: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/profile-of-a-potential-nominee-amy-coney-barrett/

pretty funny blurb in there are Stare Decisis. and made it clear ACB was ready to cut them off at the pass

"wow so u support Stare Decisis" democrats, signalling to the progressive base she's anti-progress.

"why yes i do, such as planned parenthood vs Casey" said ACB, clearly ready, with a case that actually reaffirms Roe v Wade, against ACB's personal beliefs as a pro lifer.

"wow, ummm wow, so like, umm wow, u dont like Roe then huh?" stammered the unsuspecting Democrats now forced to wander from their briefs provided by lawyers.


again, i dont like her, but she's got spunk, and for a night she could get it.

But it came from a labor friendly organization so it has to be a lie.

Since it matches Mother Jones the SCOTUS blog is now fake news per Santara. We are going to keep affirming the consequent.

the information is somewhat similar, but shockingly a list of facts can still be biased. not the facts, but which facts, and how they're framed.

reading that tweet a nearly 20 year prolific career in ivy league academia is a negative thing for scotus qualifications. her academic record is anything but mediocre, and arguably imo a LOT more important than even being a judge or having cases in front of SCOTUS.

I get it, I've made the same arguments for years when I was derided for linking to Fox News. I'm poking the same fun at the other side now. Mother Jones is biased AF. I'm not interested in the veracity of the claim.