To the editor:
Some may view gender and absence of judging experience as proper qualifications for the Supreme Court if a nominee’s perceived personal bias aligns with their own pet agendas, but what about the aspect of “justice” for the nation’s top court?
Is it “just” to pass over dozens of more qualified and experienced judges, who for years have consistently served in appellate courts and whose track records in judging real cases could provide a tangible basis in the confirmation process for Senators to weigh the consistency and justness of judging cases on their merits and existing law?
If there are any current judges who have a proven ability and disposition to judge justly, even against their own bias, why not nominate one of them for the top court regardless of gender?
The Supreme Court is the last stop in the appellate process and lawyers and clients have a right to expect a just and thorough hearing from judges who can objectively consider their case and deliver logical and lawful opinions.
If our “System of Justice” is to have justice in its proceedings, and not only as a title for Supreme Court Judges, shouldn’t a nominee for the top court have a demonstrable track record over time of actually judging the intricate elements of real court cases?