The first 2, were part of an ABA committee memo to be debated by it's members as chairwoman of the committee she signed off on the memo authorizing the debate. She did not vote for wither the international court or gay adoption and do you think that she would work as an integral part of an administration that killed America's participation in the criminal court and promoted a constituional amendment against homosexual marriage if she was for both of those issues.
3, About the gladd questionaire she said equal rights, not special rights, and in that same questioanaire she stated that Texas's sodomy laws should not be repealed.
But you knew that anyway, but decided to go with the lies anyway.
Why even have to explain these things? Why not pick someone
who a. was younger b rock solid conservative?
Another explaination, another "but consider" and "she just
wanted equal rights, not special rights" didn't they have
that already? That is known as "spin" and the same thing
occured with Roberts because of his work on the case in
CO that overturned the express will of the people.