In 2016, then President Obama was trying to nominate a person to the Supreme Court. He was blocked in Congress. Candidate Trump said he would pick form a list of 21 candidates - all vetted through the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. He even said he would nominate a candidate that would overturn Roe vs Wade, not because it is bad law, but because it is what he (Trump) believes in.
The first pick was Neil Gorsuch, one of those on the list. When Justice Kennedy was to retire, Trump added 5 more to the list (of now 20) and on that was Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Some on the original list were certainly not as qualified, but that brings up an interesting question, what makes you qualified? Is it just that you clerked for an existing justice? Ivy League education? Past rulings (if you were in a position for that?)
What about age - since Supreme Court Judges normally serve into their 70's or more, should we not eliminate anyone under 55 in order to allow them to accumulate more knowledge and wisdom?
If Kavanaugh and Barrett were equal; in qualifications, it made political sense to put Kavanaugh in first, seeing as how this would have been politically appealing when Justice Ginsburg needed to be replaced.
In fact, sometimes you do not know the true ability of someone until thy have been on the court for a few years. Many people who lauded John Roberts now criticize him, but maybe he has grown in the position an is able to lead the team - which it is - and act as a damper on some justices who might
Former Preside Trump got to nominate 3 justices (should have been 2 but that is another essay) but were these the best? If Kavanagh and Barrett where some of the best, why were they not part of his list of 21, just a year before? And if Trump had just looked at Conservative nominees, what about Liberal or Libertarian? Or maybe those with no political agenda - would they not make the best judges?
So this argument about someone is not the best, is a non-starter. We already know the person may not be the best, as the best person may never get in the mix.
So we end up with a qualified person, as we have learned from the previous nomination of Harriet Miers. The person being nominated will be questioned on their politics, but not their credentials.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/how-the-federalist-society-became-the-de-facto-selector-of-republican-supreme-court-justices.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/politics/trump-supreme-court-list/index.html
