Sunday’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton included a number of firsts for a presidential debate – including the first use of the words ‘sex tape’, and the first R-rating – as the candidates squared off in a cage match atmosphere over the issues that voters seem most concerned about: vulgarity, infidelity, and attitudes towards women.

For me the scariest part came at about an hour and 20 minutes when audience member Beth Miller asked a question: “What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court Justice?”

The candidate responses to this question told us everything we need to know about whom to support in this contest.  In particular, Clinton’s response shows that she lacks even a basic understanding of how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work.

The Constitution creates three separate but equal branches of government:  the legislature (Article I), the executive (Article II), and the judiciary (Article III).

Just as an independent judiciary (one where judges are not subject to political pressures) is an essential element of the separation of powers, an objective judiciary (one where it doesn’t matter which judge hears which case) is an essential element of the rule of law itself.

Clinton’s answer indicates that she believes the judiciary should be neither independent, nor objective.

She presented a wish list of personal attributes she thought a Justice should have, and a laundry list of results that she would expect her appointees to deliver.

The wish list described someone who:

• ‘understands the way the world really works’
• ‘has real life experience’
• has ‘not just been at a big law firm or maybe clerked for a judge’
• has ‘maybe tried some cases’
• ‘actually understands what people are up against’

And the laundry list included:

• Overturning Citizens United
• Affirming Roe v. Wade and marriage equality
• Understanding that voting rights are still a big problem for people of color, and older people and young people
• Not always siding with corporations and the wealthy

It appears that Mrs. Clinton believes the role of a Supreme Court Justice is to promote the policies of the President who appoints them, regardless of the extent to which those policies may be at odds with the Constitution – that document they both promise to uphold, and which Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention even once during her answer.

Can you even imagine having this kind of discussion about which umpires should be selected to officiate during the World Series?  You can’t, because the choice of umpires should have no effect on how the game turns out.  If it does, something has gone horribly wrong.

We require only two things from umpires:  knowledge of the rules, and the integrity to apply them impartially.

Not surprisingly, those are the same things we require from Supreme Court Justices, and fortunately, at least one of the candidates recognized that.

Mr. Trump’s simple, straightforward, and correct answer was that he would look for nominees ‘that will respect the Constitution of the United States, and I think that this is so important.’

So do I.