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.
IT's risky to you and others because you and others don't know her. Bush knows her, and there is not one single judge he's put up that has NOT been strongly conservative. the charge of cronyism is one the msm has made all week long and it's a liberal talking point. It is surely not one that any conservative should be proud to throw around. Better a Bush "crony" on the court, than a kerry or gore "crony". You don't know her. No one here knows her. Bush does, and he is the one that put up all the judges that people her wish got the nomination, and Miers is the one that was primarily responsible for picking them to go to Bush. Think about that.