Always with the "hate", these guys - which is always projection. Where did that string of adjectives come from? Not from my posts here. Imho Scalia was not homophobic, for example. He was racist, of course - hard for an American to avoid without serious and conscious effort - but that was not my objection to him. My objection was that he was shallow and trivial and unwise and belligerent in his errors, and that he frequently misread the very Constitution he claimed to treat as original text - that the people who wrote it were more intelligent than he was, and he was unaware of that fact. And that Barrett is inferior even to Scalia in that respect. She's a member of a fundamentalist Christian religious cult. She's a partisan Republican. She dissembled and misled when questioned about her associated biases - possibly but not certainly from lack of self awareness, but certainly in language coached into her by political operatives. She's not fit for the Supreme Court. The "original meaning theory" (your term, we will have to guess at it) supposedly applies the original meaning of "person" - the meaning in force when the provision at issue was written. - - - - That doesn't follow. Notice that no one can be expert in such a wide range of technical law. That's not central to the job. If some technical legal matter has significance in a particular case, all sitting Justices rely on clerks hired from law schools to bring them up to speed - which they could do for anyone with the necessary experience and intelligence. Unlikely. Certainly not as slapstick a game show as we've been getting from the judges appointed by Republicans to the Court, who get past the nut-case screening by waving paper credentials. Besides: That's not what happened. The Court was at least as competent and well respected when it had mere law readers - lawyers with no law degree, who were not judges - sitting on it as it is today when populated by mickey mouse partisans who happened to know a politician. Check out the reasoning on that Voting Rights Act ruling, for example. It's quite silly. The Court actually ruled that Texas was no longer influenced by racism in the drawing of political district boundaries. That's not just wrong, but goofy. The nature of the American Constitution is one of the things foreigners seem to have a lot of trouble comprehending - it's not a body of laws. There's no penalty for "breaking" its provisions. The Supreme Court does not oversee trials, hand down sentences, enforce laws, assess guilt or innocence, etc. It follows arguments and reasoning and draws conclusions. Barack Obama, for example, is more fit and better qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than half its currently seated members.