I will be blunt: I think Roe v. Wade was such an egregiously, obviously, and blatantly wrong decision (I would say that the much-criticized Plessy v. Ferguson, which for the record I do not support, had much better legal basis than Roe v. Wade did) that anyone who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade is
almost inherently a better SCOTUS pick than anyone who did not.
That said, I am fully aware that many, presumably including yourself, would strongly disagree with that criteria. Still, despite your apparently low opinion of his SCOTUS picks, surely you would at least acknowledge that compared to those who Trump chose for positions in the executive office, they were superior.
he picked the 2 least qualified justices in our history.
As Yttrium already pointed out, there have certainly been justices that were never judges, which was apparently a major point of criteria for you. However, in the case of Kagan, you tried to defend it by saying she had a notable resume, referring to her being solicitor general and dean of a law school. At this point, however, it is harder to weigh in on whether she is more "qualified" than someone like Barrett, as we are comparing different things that are harder to quantify.
But we run into a larger problem: There are justices who had zero judicial experience; namely, people who weren't even lawyers. Such as Joseph Story, for example, who ended up being a fairly influential justice. By what definition of 'qualified' are you using that would make him more qualified than any of Trump's picks?
Someone might say "well, those justices were appointed quite a while ago, things are different now." But you didn't say "in recent history". You said "in our history". It seems a ridiculous statement.
one had only been a judge for 3 years,
As has been noted, that's three more years than Kagan had.
and the other cried like a baby and ranted about beer at his interview.
While I did not care for some of Kavanaugh's behavior in his confirmation hearing, one should note he was being attacked rather relentlessly.
But more importantly, what in the world does this have to do with
judicial qualifications? At most it would indicate he has a bad temperament (though I have not heard of any complaints of such since, indicating that was not typical for him), but would not seem to indicate much in terms of how qualified someone is for the actual job of a SCOTUS justice.
supreme.findlaw.com
