We won't see that because it isn't happening. Trump is nominating great judges with great resumes. The fact that you assert this means you aren't worth listening to.
The American Bar Association does have some smart people who are qualified to evaluate nominees, though admittedly they probably won't all pass the horninchicago intelligence test.
ABA ratings during he Trump administration - Ballotpedia
I'm sure Trump said all these nominees had admirable qualifications.
The ABA leans left (Deez will tell you that) so I'm not sure I buy into their analysis. Only 4 for Clinton but 8 for Bush and 8 for Trump.
A few things about this. First, none of this has anything to do with court packing. It's an entirely separate matter that was brought up to divert attention away from the dumpster fire that is court packing and to draw an equivalence of some sort when there is none. Those 8 lower court judges could be illiterate one-legged strippers with meth addictions, and it wouldn't even be in the same galaxy of crappiness and destructiveness as Court packing. Though the conservatives here know it's bad, I'm not even sure that they appreciate the degree to which it is bad.
Second, I don't doubt that there have been some duds in Trump's judicial nominations. For example, Brett Talley was a joke (and was withdrawn). Most presidents have had some, because like other cush federal jobs, federal judgeships are sometimes given to political hacks as a reward. However, to say Trump is "filling the courts" with people who have questionable qualifications is an absurd exaggeration.
Third, Garmel is right that the ABA leans left. Lawyers tend to be liberal. It shouldn't shock anyone that their organizations lean that way. Does that mean the ABA rating is worthless? No. I think they generally try to be fair, and most of their analysis is solid. I'll readily admit that an unqualified rating would make me pause on a nominee and want to look further. However, is it perfect, and would it cause me to knee jerk reject a nominee? Hell no. Why not? Because it leaves open significant room for subjectivity.
Consider their criteria for judicial temperament - "the nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law."
There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but with verbiage like "compassion," "open-mindedness," "freedom from bias," and "equal justice under the law," there's a lot of room for political bias and agendas that have nothing to do with being a competent judge to enter the equation.
