I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.
Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.
How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?
is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?
NO?
they why bring him up?
Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC
I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.
and still nothing to do with the OP.
Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?
You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.
Doesn't matter. He's a partisan prick.
The Supreme Court is not as one way as you promote. If it was Progs in the same numbers it would be.