You need to knock that off.
I disagree. For appointments to subsidiary courts, how good a lawyer one is can be the predominate question, because the task is to take superior court precedents and mold a decision. But the liberals (with the acquiescence of the conservatives) have converted the Supreme Court to an on-going, unelected legislature, expressing preferences for various 'policy' options. According, how good a lawyer one is is almost irrelevant at the Supreme Court.
It is no good to say that "a new conservative majority will change that," any more than a new conservative majority in Congress has changed the preference for pork and unrestrained spending. It will not. Whomever is appointed and confirmed will be another vote in the 9-man legislature we call the "Supreme Court" for the rest of his (or her) life.
No aspect of a person is a better indicator of their likely policy preferences than their choices in life experience. Are we really surprised that a goofy, hermit-like bachelor from the wilds of New Hampshire has his head turned by the flattering chatter of Washington social life and votes a straight liberal line once he is voted to the SC?
Now, we get another one. This time, a 60-year, post-menopausal female who has chosen never to marry, never to have a family and, instead, work long hours devoted to a law firm. Surely, this must tell us something of her life priorities. Is this not relevant in divining her predictable policy preferences?
Finally, remember, after eight years of the overwhelming, breathtaking evidence of the correctness of Ronald Reagan, this female supported Bentsen and Gore.
_______________
Most important to me in this appointment -- and the point many here miss -- is that Bush has now confirmed Clinton's fondest hope -- the establishment of a second set-aside female seat on the SC. So we will now have, going-forward, one set-aside 'black' seat (the Thurgood Marshall - Clarence Thomas seat), two (2) female seats (the Sandy O'Connor-Harriet Miers seat and the Ruth Ginsberg seat) and soon we will have the compulsory 'Hispanic' seat (the Alberto Gonzales seat?). So, we will now have only five members of the Court selected primarily on ability even in a Republican administration. This is truly tragic.
Then you're ignorant, too.
Once again............what if it was GOD'S WILL for her to be single, like it was for the Apostle Paul?
Or is it just your misogyny peeking out, winston? Is it only women who have to be married to be trustworthy? Paul was OK being single because it was God's choice for his life? But Harriet will be a bad judge because she is single?
Is that how it works?