How is it stealth when she's been an outspoken pro-live Christian, opposing abortion professionally and personally, she's voted Republican, represented Republicans, worked on a Republican administration for five years, been a Republican President's lead council for five years, and been pivotal in picking ALL of the President's judicial nominees for ALL levels of the judiciary, and ALL of them have proven to be strong constructionist conservative judges? Again, I ask, how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.
It's stealth because the discussions and arguments are and will be more about what her positions are, and less about why her positions are the right ones under the Constitution.
BTW, stealth is not my only objection. I am concerned that a charge of cronyism is not incredible with this nomination.
how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.
You missed the thrust of my first post to you. She may be "to the right of Atilla the Hun," maybe she is more radically conservative than I am (but I doubt it =:-O). She might be great, but her nomination isn't. It's a risky way to advance constitutionalism.