Judging Supreme Court nominees

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If voting Option 2, please specify which issues should be the basis for judging the nominee.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

option 3 (normal)

[Antonio the Sixth]

A balance of 1 and 2, with 1 prevailing in close calls.

[politicallefty]

A balance of 1 and 2, with 1 prevailing in close calls.

^This. It's why I would have voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, yet would have voted against Justice Alito.

[mencken]

No nominee with a "position on the issues" rather than an overarching judicial philosophy ought to be confirmed to begin with.

[Orser67]

Experience for me is mostly a yes/no proposition. Either they have the experience (preferably they have served on an appellate court, though being an appellate lawyer works too) or they don't.

Assuming they have adequate experience, I think the most important thing is that they have an open mind and are willing to rule in a case based on precedent and law rather than ideology; in other words, they follow the process to a result rather than starting with an ideologically-favorable result and finding a way to justify it. I would definitely oppose Clarence Thomas, but I think the other justices are in more of a gray area in this regard. I think that all of the justices have probably been guilty of voting based on ideology at some point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No nominee with a "position on the issues" rather than an overarching judicial philosophy ought to be confirmed to begin with.

Would never have thought I'd agree with a beige avatar named after a complete douchebag, but there I am.