And perhaps, just perhaps, someone you consider to be "the least qualified" is actually the BEST person for the job. Ever think of that?
All of the supposed BESTEST OF THE BEST, haven't turned out to be very good at all.
Justice Thomas was considered to be just a dreadful, mediocre nominee and a damned token to boot; for example.
I am fading fast.
Carry on.
Good nite.
Thanks for the edumacation, NP.
I disagree and strongly that the above means some candidates do not have decipherably better qualifications than others. Sorry. It is an irrational and silly notion.
"And perhaps, just perhaps, someone you consider to be "the least qualified" is actually the BEST person for the job. Ever think of that?"
I've read it on this forum several times and proudly disavow any and all credit for having thought of it myself. That must be one of the all time worst arguments ever made in the advocation of any singular position in a debate.
"All of the supposed BESTEST OF THE BEST, haven't turned out to be very good at all."
So we should nominate candidates with lesser qualifications and little or no indication of ideology to get better, more conservative justices? The least qualified is the BEST person for the job?" Wow, if that's your best argument for the nomination of Miss Miers, your side really has gone mad, LOL! I'll remember to offer your above suggestion to the human resource personnel where I work.
How odd that conservatives who oppose affirmative action and quotas precisely because they completely disregard MERIT would be advocating the same abhorrent practice for nominations to the Supreme Court, one of the most powerful, prestigious and highly prized positions in the United States. I fail to see how THAT's a winning strategy.
"Justice Thomas was considered to be just a dreadful, mediocre nominee and a damned token to boot; for example."
I remember his nomination well and FULLY supported it. I was so bothered by the attacks upon him, I took a day off from work and went to Washington visiting the Senators from my state as well as those on the then Judiciary committee, to voice my dissent at the outrageous treatment he was given. I then attended the hearing in the Senate.
Most conservatives at the time supported him, and he was not considered mediocre, nor certainly not dreadful nor was he the candidate who had the LEAST impressive qualifications of all the then known candidates, though there were other candidates who had greater constitutional experience and more time on the bench.
He also was NOT the president's friend who possessed a really weird, obsessive penchant for hiding his stands on the issues, eventuating in a situation in which he couldn't be identified as a conservative. In fact, his experience and resume contained strong conservative indicators, and I was certain he would prove to be an originalist, a conservative and someone who would likely overturn Roe vs. Wade, or I would NOT have gone to Washington to support him. I believe Justice Thomas has well proven me correct.
I was right about Thomas and I am right about Miers.
"There are NO listed qualifications,NONE, for justices of the SCOTUS. Ergo, nobody can be 'least qualified', if there are NO QUALIFICATIONS."
Red Herring.
You know as well as the rest of us that there is an informal set of qualifications that we look for in a conservative judge. Leftists have their own quote unquote qualifications too.
For you to say to people who have spent a lot of time and effort to see that Souter II doesn't happen, your red herring is a slap in the face.