In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified. Of course, that applies to any 'Form' of Government. The Top of a Political Entity is always the 'Driver' of the 'Entity'. As Driver, the 'Leader' should posses the 'Political knowledge' to 'drive' the 'Ship of State' and should also show 'some concern' for its 'People'. Of course, 'the Peoples' or 'Subjects' are all 'Human Beings'. All Human Beings are the 'Same' and deserve some 'concern' from the Top, regardless its 'Form of Government'. The reason for that is that a 'Form of Government' is a 'Man-made' Institution'. The 'Human Condition' is not 'Man-made'. Of course, some will think that's naive; how can a 'Dictatorship' be concerned with 'its People'? I'm suggesting 'some concern', not a 'complete change' in the 'Form of Government'. After all, weren't some 'Kings' more 'humane' than 'Others'? Are some 'Dictators' more 'humanitarian' than Others? I'm not trying to draw a 'new Line' between 'Form of Government' and 'degrees' of Morality. The fact remains, a 'human being' will always be a 'human being' and every 'Leader' who serves in 'Office' is a Human Being. In a Democracy, the Top is always expected to be 'Politically qualified' and also 'Morally Qualified'. But, lately, has 'Morality' been separated from Democratic Politics? Recently, a Supreme Court Appointee was accused of 'very violent sexual behavior' in a 'Hearing' before the 'Judiciary Committee'. Of course, a Committee, is not qualified to 'try an accusation' like that. That requires a 'Jury Trial' in a 'Proper Court'. Yet, the Committee, after a 'squabble' with the 'Opposing Party', and accusations of 'Political Party Sabotage', went on an approved the Appointment. Now, we have, on the Highest Court in the Land, a 'Tainted' Justice. The Truth is no one is qualified to judge the Justice. So why did a 'Vote' based on 'Party Loyalty' 'settle' the issue and advanced him to the Highest Court in the Land? What happens to 'Objectivity'? In a Democracy, 'Objectivity' is necessary in the Highest Court in the Land. Many, Many, years ago, the 'Bottom of Democracy' split into 'Political Parties'. So now, instead of trying to achieve 'Judicial Objectivity' in 'Constitutional Adjudication', we 'stack' the 'Courts' with 'Party Preferences' in 'Constitutional Interpretation'. Isn't it time we improve the 'selection process' of the Highest Court in the Land? Where are the Real Politicians?