I'll say this... it is easy to cherry pick through all of her decisions and come up with what you want to prove about her. you don't know any or all of the circumstances behind any of those decision. From what I have read about her, she has been fairly well respected for her rulings and decisions. As far as her SAT's and LSATs go... of what significance would they be? She made it through Harvard law school... that tells me how smart and determined she must be. If documents and scores like that are important why were you willing to let your buddy Trump off the hook when he refused (and still does) to release his tax forms? That's something that every presidential candidate has done in the past. Sorry but I couldn't help but make this analogy even if its not consistent with scores on college and law school entry exams. Besides, especially with SAT's, they don't prove much of anything... that's why a lot of schools don't use them anymore.
.
Finally, in the past I have watched other proceedings such as Barrett, Thomas, etc. They all avoid certain types of questions so that they don't create issues for future rulings... if they happened to be confirmed. It should be easy enough for you to understand why. Even a simple question like the one about what she considers a woman is... could come back to haunt her if she ever had to make a ruling on a transgender rights case if it got to the Supreme Court.
I agree that you could cherry pick any judge's rulings. I do agree with that.
Harvard law school means very little to me because I know they knock down requirements now. It isn't like she's got a degree from MIT in physics.
But on the SAT/LSAT - you're aware that the SAT used to be (and for her age, probably still IS) essentially an IQ test.
I want judges who are SMART. Very smart. Not lemmings.
So, while I think Dershowitz did some very questionable things with Epstein, I would STILL have him on the bench because he's quite smart (although his argument that "we thought gender wasn't changeable, but turns out it is" is laughable), and has shown himself to be reasonably principled (in that he doesn't outright lie, even if he would like to).
Now as regards Trump - I would very much like to see his SAT score too (since we are probably going to elect him in 2024). I'd like to see the SAT score of DeSantis and Massie. But their taxes? No, no interest in that.
I'm tired of midwits.
Yes, there is more to a person than pure intellect. And lots of very smart people are evil. But let's start with smart and then select out from there for other bad characteristics.
Let me put it to you this way: What IQ score is too low to be considered?
Obviously you'd agree that anyone with an IQ under 100 should NEVER be on the supreme court.
Shouldn't the standard be the top 5% of intellects? 130? Seriously, there are over 7,000,000 Americans with an IQ above 130. Although its hard for me to believe (just a little sarcasm there), some of them are actually lawyers.
I say that we pick from that subset - has to be at least 300,000 lawyers with IQ above 130.