All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, being right wing ideologues who, in more than a few cases, couldn’t judge a high school beauty pageant, and, more importantly, loyal buttmunches for Trump.

I don't believe that was the point the guy from Vox was making.

Those qualifications seem to focus primarily on furthering a strictly conservative evangelical agenda.

They may also further a conservative agenda, but they do appear to generally meet high standards on particular objective measures.

The judiciary is where policy is made in the United States. And that policy is likely to be made by Republican judges for the foreseeable future. Further in the article Millhiser describes the partisan decisions these appointees have already leveled and the increased power they will have over the lives of average Americans in the next several decades.

This is one of the things where conservatives are happy, and liberals are not.

In political discussions I've followed the main way judges come up is an explanation about why left and far-left voters should be willing to stomach support for a center-left presidential candidate, but that perspective neglects that this is something Trump's done that a mainstream Republican like Rubio or Jeb Bush wishes he had pulled off.

I'd wager most of those judges these appointees clerked for were heavily conservative in their leanings, otherwise the Federalists wouldn't have vouched for them.
There is obviously nothing democratic about any of this and it should be illegal for any political group to have so much influence over a process that will shape the American legal system for decades to come.

What regulations would you like in order to shut down a form of commentary on legal matters?