Thought of a better analogy.
It’s halftime at the superbowl, and the coach is in the locker room with the team that is currently behind on points.
He says, “They’re out there kicking your asses! They even seem to be manipulating the ball in ways that should be against the rules. We need to go back on the field and redouble our efforts!”
The team sees it as inspiration, but, the coach’s comments become public, and the other team calls it advertising for their team.
Why was Six terrible? I know nothing about him.
My bad, I was thinking of Caitlin Halligan and her views on gun control, but I was reading a different article that was talking about Six. Six was opposed by both home state senators based in part on his views of the ACA. I personally don’t think the ACA should have been ruled constitutional on a number of grounds, but his view was not out of the mainstream.
As for Halligan, her views that gun manufacturers created a public nuisance in my view is disqualifying, even though she shared a similar pedigree of the other nominees being appellate court and SCOTUS clerk. She’s probably qualified to be a judge, but her judicial philosophy makes her untenable.
Overall though, the winner gets to pick the nominees and I’m pleased thus far on the judiciary front. I’ve been opposed in general to the filibuster for nominees and think they should get an up or down vote. I know that’s not how it’s happened historically.
You *could *have stipulated up front that your assessment of nominees’ judicial qualifications is based solely on a single issue, and at that not even upon how they’ve reached decisions on that issue but only on what those decisions are.
I notice that none of the “liberal” posters has bothered to respond to the article from the Times that talked about President Obama’s record with regard to proposed judges determined by the ABA to be not qualified…
The good news (if you believe that ABA ratings should have any value in determining a candidate’s qualifications) is that President Obama wouldn’t formally nominate anyone rated not qualified. President Trump appears not to be worried with that, which may be more problematic (I certainly think so).
The problem isn’t so much with qualification in general as with ideologueism in particular.
The reason that trump has as many vacancies to fill as he does is specifically because the obama nominees were denied an up or down vote.
I’m not sure how to parse that, as it seems as though you are praising the republicans and appreciating their actions on one hand, but they are only able to have those results because they engaged in practices that you disagree with.
Back to football, it is as if you are saying “I don’t think that you should ever deflate a football, unless you are handing it to Tom Brady.”
Which is certainly one way to look at it, but a) that tends to end up being a question only discussable via one’s own political bias (MY judges aren’t ideologues, they’re just applying the law; it’s the OTHER side’s judges that are warping reality to get what they want), and b) creates a potential unintended consequence of supporting the notion that “your” own judicial nominees can be unqualified as long as they are properly biased. I have several conservative friends who are quite happy with what the President is doing regarding judges, simply because he’s doing what they wanted: making the courts conservative again. Presumably, you’d be happy if the president who follows Pres. Trump appoints liberal judges; the question is: how would you feel about unqualified liberal judges?
If you demand qualified judges, then to the extent that the President is nominating qualified judges, that’s much better than nominating unqualified judges, is it not?
Name one and I’ll answer that.
I’d rather have an incompetent judge trying to push a repugnant and result-driven ideology than a competent one, wouldn’t you?