Where are her solid constructionist credentials? That's what I want outlined for me.
Bump to that. Of course, we're 'loony.' See, if you want a nominee who's a proven conservative, one who has made various references in and out of the courtroom to their philosophy, so you know darn well what they believe about the Constitution--why, that's just crazy talk!
However, accepting docilely the nomination of a federal appeals court judge whose record reflects a fine appellate judge but has no real indication of the intentions as to the Constitution--well, that's just plain common sense! It's not as if we've ever had a nominee like that turn on us and the Constitution, it plain isn't true! And anyone who says different must be one of those foot-stomping idiots who wants to bolt the party and cause dissent and give the Congress to the Commies and ruin all the work we've done and waste their vote and...
Me, I think the GOP's base deserves to know that the nominee is not merely a fine appellate judge, but an appointee who is in line with their beliefs when it comes to the Constitution. And that means a paper trail and a likely Senate confirmation fight. The folks who are shovelling otherwise here are simply willing to happily exclaim BOHICA over and over. At least some constitutionalists aren't so foolish as to smile and grip their ankles again.