[newzjunkey]

She's applying for a job. She won't tell us anything in the hearings since that is the "ethical" thing. It's the Ginsburg rule. You cannot have an unknown in such a position.

I don't need to meet her. I know all I need to know (by virtue of not knowing anything) that she is the wrong person at the wrong time for SCOTUS.

You're attempting to draw an equivalence where one cannot be fairly drawn.

Nice try but it won't fly.

[dirtboy]

She's applying for a job. She won't tell us anything in the hearings since that is the "ethical" thing.

Wrong. She will give a judicial philosophy. And some specific views. She will not cite how she would rule on specific cases. As she should not.

You're attempting to draw an equivalence where one cannot be fairly drawn.

Wrong again.

It's called restraint. Something sorely missing from the anti-Miers crowd.

[restornu]

Some of you folks are such snobs...

after all when the the Supreme Court was first forum even a common man non lawyer could sit on the Supreme Court!

I think we need at least one common person point of view, she seems to be common in your eyes because she did not attend all of the various Elitist Play Grounds....

The qualifications haven't changed, only in the minds of the eggs heads they think they own the place!