Wow, a whole year? And that's enough in your eyes to be ready for a (hopefully long) lifetime in the most important and influential long-term position on the planet? I'd prefer a bit more than one year's experience on any CV first, even for an assistant manager at Bennigan's.
Call me sexist if you must, but women tend to change too much over time. I've yet to see a consistent conservative female jurist over the long haul. I love the hopefulness of wanting a 46 year old (Hoosier!) female to write exceptionally-crafted Originalist opinions for 4+ decades at SCOTUS, but I do not see it happening.
PLEASE inform me of any that can act as a counter-example to my point here!!
Exactly how many conservative female jurists are you familiar with to make your judgment?
And, by the same token, how many so-called conservative MALE jurists are you familiar with that turned out to be "consistent"?
RE: Wow, a whole year? And that’s enough in your eyes to be ready for a (hopefully long) lifetime in the most important and influential long-term position on the planet?
If the framers of the constitution wanted judges to be in the Supreme Court, they would have made that a requirement in the constitution.
They did not.
Barrett is well qualified because SHE KNOWS THE LAW AND TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. She has also PRACTICED LAW.
Most of the cases that come to the SCOTUS rely on the correct INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. This is where a constitutionalist and someone who treats the text of the document seriously will be needed.
So, her experience as a Judge in the circuit court is helpful but not necessary.
And may I remind you — Clarence Thomas became a sitting judge in the Federal Court in March 6,1990.
He took over from William Brennan at the SCOTUS October 1991. That’s barely 1 1/2 years as a judge.
What then? He has become one of the best Justices we have seen for nearly 30 years.