So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?
"So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?"
"Souter in Roberts' Clothing"
The headline is accurate, but it's certainly not applied to demonstrate that Roberts is a Souter as far as a liberal puke. She's certainly against a 'Souter,' but when I say "I don't think her intent was to argue against Roberts," I mean she's not arguing against Roberts personally. She doesn't say he's scum or some liberal that shouldn't ever be nominated. She's saying that he's a nominee with a Souter-like lack of conservative ideological credentials. That title has nothing to do with Roberts' personal ideals--it has everything to do with Roberts being Souter inasmuch as he is also a "stealth nominee". And she fairly denigrates Roberts' nomination on the principle that Bush has the Senate votes and the conservative judges, and the conservative base waiting, so it makes no sense to pick a non-paper-trailed-Souter-style stealth nominee now. And I do look forward to any quotes from her article that differ with that interpretation.