The problem

The problem is if I had $1. For every vote not counted I'd be a multi millionaire, the reason was she is a female, that's the core and us humankind Americans have had enough. You opened the door and we are already rolling through, no stopping us now and us mom's and grandmoms will stand between our kids in the police and military and the crowds if that is what it will take! Neither our kids or grown grandkids would Kent state a crowd in front us.

I think there are a lot of reasons why Clinton lost, but yes this was probably one. I heard a guy on the radio talking about what he liked about Trump and a pro was analyzing what he said and it was all the ability to project power and presence. Hillary can project power but not in the same way that's going to resonate with people who vote with their gut.

(sigh) I was looking forward to her first Supreme Court pick. Can you imagine? "Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, I am pleased to give you a man of consummate credentials, a man with experience in both our legislative and executive branches. I NOMINATE BARACK OBAMA!!"

Are there any theoretical limits on who can be appointed to the Supreme Court, or can one in principle appoint six babies to the Supreme Court?

That would be Article III. Don't see a minimum age. A great deal about the Supreme Court is based on precedent; notably, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court any particular authority in deciding what is and isn't constitutional. As I recall the story (you've been warned), Chief Justice John Marshall was responsible for that; essentially, Congress filed suit against the President on grounds what he was doing was unconstitutional (might have been Jefferson applying military force without a declaration of war, but I'm just guessing), and if the Supreme Court had said the President wasn't allowed to do that, the President would have done it anyway and things would just have deteriorated into an even worse constitutional crisis; so instead, the Supreme Court said "we do have jurisdiction to decide what's constitutional, and our decision is that what the President is doing is allowed". The President wasn't going to object to the ruling since it was in his favor, and thus the President effectively supported the Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction to decide what's constitutional.