It was related to the imbecilic assertion that we had to "shut up" because we lived in states that didn't cast their electoral votes for President Bush.
He was implying that we had less of a voice in the matter than Republicans who lived in states that were in the red column, which isn't true.
The person who posted this did not tell you or anyone else they didn't have a voice. He pointed out all the claims of putting President Bush in office ring hollow when one considers the States actually won and by whom. Actually, the blue states are also notorious for the RINO and RAT Senators who consistently have done their best to keep any conservative out of SCOTUS.
I don't think anyone should "shut up" because their state didn't help elect the president. However, the states with more elitist thought are states that never vote republican anyway (or at least rarely do). The heartland of America is happy to see someone who isn't from inside the "judicial loop" be nominated. True, she is no John Roberts, but also true she is no David Souter. At least I suspect she is neither. In fact she may be just as competent as Roberts (but I do doubt it).
What has bugged me from the outset is the almost immediate attacks against this nominee by those who should at least have given her the initial benefit of the doubt. By all accounts few know much about her, yet many were willing to not only disagree with the nomination, but to call her names like paper stapler and the like. This was uncalled for. I think there was more than a little snobbery in response to this nomination, and that struck me as unfair.