Amy Barrett has extensive background as legal scholar. That is a type of experience that is extremely valuable on the Court as part of the mix of skills and knowledge that need to be on the court. And it made her judicial philosophy highly knowable and it was upon that philosophy that she was chosen for the court. With consideration to the desire to have a woman also being a consideration.
Jackson, in contrast, was unable to even articulate her judicial philosophy. She just babbled out something about her methodology being her philosophy, whatever that means. And said that her philosophy was to be fair and examine the facts. Just bullshit. That is not a philosophy, it is just a fundamental requirement for all judges. It is like asking a doctor what his philosophy toward patient care and medicine is and he says: "I examine patients and do what I think is right." Ah okay. Did not matter though. All the dems wanted was someone of skin color who sits down when peeing. The fact that she could not even define what a woman was let them know that she was one of them.
Last edited:
