Yea, and that says a lot about their character too.
What legal minds have problems with his knowledge of the law, his reasoning abilities, and his ability to hear legal arguments and compare them to the law?
How about the 5 times he lied under oath?
Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath
Lots of us have a problem with his reasoning. He says he would not **** with roe v wade but that's actually a lie. We don't like liars. You don't mind as long as they are your liars.
What legal minds like him? I mean besides any idealogs republicans.
You're not addressing the question.
Every liberal or moderate has a problem with his reasoning and his ability to hear legal arguments and not apply his right wing ideology to his decisions. Basically he will legislate from the bench. You guys think your conservative lawyers don't do this but they do. They're just the opposite side of the coin to our guys.
Maybe they have an ideological problem with his rulings, but I've not heard any of them claim he would be an incompetent justice. He got a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the ABA, and NONE of the current kerfuffle around him is related at all to his judicial temperament. What more do you need to know he's well qualified?
Name the last pick that wasn't well qualified. I mean besides the ones Bush tried to appoint. Didn't he try to appoint Condi Rice?
Or it was this lady Bush tried to appoint and everyone laughed
Bush nominated White House Counsel
Harriet Miers
However, Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27 after facing significant opposition.
OMG I'm reading up on Bush and he wanted to nominate Alberto Gonzales. A total incompetent.
Gonzales had also presided over the
firings of several U.S. Attorneys who had refused back-channel White House directives to prosecute political enemies, allegedly causing the office of Attorney General to become improperly politicized.
[2]Following calls for his removal, Gonzales resigned from the office "in the best interests of the department," on August 27, 2007, effective September 17, 2007.
[3][4]
There was immediate and intense opposition to Miers' nomination, primarily from conservative Republicans. Principal complaints included:
- That her credentials under objective standards were not sufficient to qualify her for the position.
- That her nomination was the result of political cronyism. Because her legal career did not compare to those of other possible conservative female candidates (like federal appellate judges Edith Jones, Karen J. Williams, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown), many thought that President Bush probably nominated Miers for her personal loyalty to him rather than for her qualifications.
- That there was no written record to demonstrate that she was either a strict constructionist or originalist in her approach to constitutional interpretation. Some conservatives feared that she would support abortion rights, affirmative action and gay rights if ever confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court.
On the morning of Thursday, October 27, 2005, President Bush "reluctantly" accepted Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.