Which fallacy involves voting against a Supreme Court nominee simply because they lack prior judgeship experience?

The fallacy of voting against a Supreme Court nominee solely based on the absence of prior judgeship experience aligns with the concept of an inconsequent argument. This fallacy occurs when an argument is judged based on a factor that is not relevant to the actual qualifications or abilities of the individual in question. In this context, the nominee's lack of previous judicial experience may not inherently reflect their capability to serve on the Supreme Court, as there are various paths to this role, and judgeships are not the only measure of suitability.

By dismissing the nominee based on this one characteristic, the argument ignores other critical qualifications, experiences, or skills that may make the nominee a strong candidate. Thus, the reasoning is flawed because it focuses on a point that lacks relevance to the larger criteria of evaluating a Supreme Court nominee's potential effectiveness and capacity for the position. This illustrates how the decision can stem from an inconsequent aspect rather than a thorough assessment of the nominee's overall qualifications and competency.