Debates are where a person takes a stand for or against...you did not say which side you are taking.
1. There is no requirement in the Constitution to nominate a lawyer or a sitting judge of any level Court to the Supreme Court. It is, however, common practice to nominate a Circuit Court of Appeals Justice or perhaps a State Supreme Court Justice to the Supreme Court. They have heard a lot of cases and the legal written opinion is fairly well known. It is uncommon to appoint from the US District Courts, but it has happened years ago.
2. In this case, she is on the 2nd Circuit of the Court of Appeals since 1998. She has written about 380 opinions.
3. There is little doubt that she is a hard-worker, but her legal opinions tend to be so mixed...she can't see the forest for the trees is what I have read. She does not seem to be all that articulate on issues. She seems to focus on a specific argument or issue rather than considering the entire case? I really don't know - that is what I read.
4. A Catholic and of Puerto Rican heritigage by birth - that is not a big deal. That does not mean she will support Roe v. Wade or will not support it. And divorced...no idea what she will do on the same-sex marriage issue which almost has to come up to the Court soon.
5. I don't particularly like her nomination. I know she seems liberal enough in her views to appeal to Presidebt Obama and his crew. I tend to think that her past Court opinions and statements to the public make her less than the best nominee.
6. She will tend to go along with the liberals on the Court...I do not see any really great written work coming out of her why she was for or against a certain case. I tend to doubt that she will write the majority opinion or the minority opinion. She will write an opinion so filled with -- never mind -- we will never know what way that tree bends in the wind.
Better yet, we get her for life or until she quits.
· 1 decade ago