[ohioWfan]

You can be disappointed (I am too).

But the problem comes with making assumptions based on rumors, and calling this a failure when that cannot possibly be ascertained at this point.

What I object to here is the presumption of failure based on speculation only, when........as I have said previously.........as the facts come in, they are supporting her conservatism and pro-life positions.

A little personal restraint is in order here.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Face it, Bush is going to have to reinforce this nominee in order to get her through. She might make a great appellate judge, but not a Justice on the SCOTUS.

[counterpunch]

What I object to here is the presumption of failure based on speculation only, when........as I have said previously.........as the facts come in, they are supporting her conservatism and pro-life positions.

That is fair, and I agree with you.
It's not about her judicial philosophy for me, especially on any one clause or reading of the law or narrow issue.
I would prefer non-activist constructionists. If they overturn Roe on the grounds that it was wrongly decided, then great, that is what they ought to do. I'm no activist and I wouldn't want a judge who is either.

My issue is quite simply that Bush picked a crony who just doesn't rise to the level of the court to which she has been selected. She's just not ready for prime time, she's just not qualified enough. Of course to my mind, the only sitting Justices who are are Roberts and Scalia.
I also tend to agree Bush should have picked someone 5 to 10 years younger.