...and before Trump both Republicans and Democrats when picking their nominees would pick a candidate that leaned their way and that the the other side could agree was well qualified and experienced enough to do the job well even if they didn't like the candidates politics.
In October, the American Bar Association rated Barrett "well qualified" for the Supreme Court opening, its highest rating.[115] The ABA confines its evaluation to the qualities of "integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament
The ABA rated her as well qualified. I'm doing to defer to them. I do understand your point that she had never had a judgeship before her appeals appointment in 2017, of which she served a little over 3 years in that position.
I think looking back at the alacrity with which she was appointed, the speed at which Roe was subsequently overturned, not to mention the stated rationale of the POTUS at the time, we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist.
>we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist.
Of course that's true. All judges are picked for their political bias. If you want to argue that she's unqualified, I refer you to the ABA assessment which disagrees.
My point is that discussing her qualifications is irrelevant. If she were there to be a judge, then her qualifications as a jurist might matter. But she's not there to be a judge, she's there to be a political operative. I know it, you know it, Senate Republicans know it, the plaintiffs pleading cases before her know it, and (most importantly) she knows it. So why the hell is anyone talking about her qualifications as a jurist? In her role on the Supreme Court, her only role that matters, she's a political operative, and she behaves as such. Accordingly, that's the only lens under which she should be analyzed. The ABA has nothing relevant to say about her.
