Defcon

Is that true via statute?

Judges only apply the law. If you don't like a judges ruling but they applied the law as written, change the law not the judge

except in some cases*

I guess no one would care if we had a judge that had ties to blm or antifa

Next judge up

(for example where the intent of the law is very different than how it is being inadvertently applied, to prosecute someone and put them in prison or somesuch)

Are they even required to be real judges with law degrees

She has practically no trial experience as a lawyer... She had very little in court experience as an attorney. She practiced for 3 years - with very little lead attorney experience. She jumped straight to being a judge (after teaching). She heard a little over 100 cases. That is very little practical experience by any measure.

OK fine, but if there was some other nominee, they would still have voted no to a person

the court has become a power grab

because it effectively has unlimited powers

So why we need judges. Have a computer decide cases. They just read the laws and do the verdict.

I looked it up you don’t really need any requirements to be a Supreme Court judge

You could literally be anyone

True

yes but traditionally the senate is allowed to make requirements

the "advise and consent"

Impossible when AI bots can completely flood any opposition in real time, like Discuss in it's infancy or Reddit as well. GOP needs to float the boat to win the 4th Industrial Revolution to keep our freedom intact!

It has... Until the 1930's the Senate didn't even hold hearings. A vacancy happened, the Prez nominated someone, the Senate rubber stamped it. @realz

The senate could always just reject an unqualified candidate on such grounds

So this acb with the little experience she has could just be a mouth piece for whatever donors got her there

AI judges do not work because laws are written by people to be read by people

Doesn’t seem like a good pick, why should we expect good “non activist” rulings from her

cool

at least she espouses a non-activist approach

Espouses

the opposition _espouses_ activism!

I'll remind you prior to ACB the Dems tried to block a very experienced judge on 30 year old allegations

Not so Fun fact... The Senate started holding hearing because FDR accidentally nominated a (former) member of the KKK.

So I'm not convinced Dems had any principle to their opposition to nominations

"accidentally" ?

😛

the KKK ruins everything

Not so fun fact, FDR had concentration camps. I'm not surprised

Oh sorry, "internment camps"

yea they weren't concentration camps

Nobody's perfect... I heard Marilyn Monroe farted in bed.

that is being unfair

I remember in the hearing she answered a question with “do you think a woman can’t think for herself” in response to who her donors were. It’s very likely with that tiny amount of experience she may very well be just that, How do you develop any real personal experience or “experience based judgment” with only ruling over 100 cases

Barnes doesn't like her either