[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.

[ohioWfan]

She's just not ready for prime time, she's just not qualified enough.

Like Rehnquist?

I'm sorry, but this 'crony' thing doesn't hold any water at all. They know each other. He trusts her. That gives me even more confidence in his choice.

He's pro-life. She's pro-life. He doesn't want a judge to legislate from the bench. Neither does she.

He's done exactly what he's said he would do.

[floriduh voter]

Why does Bush habitually pick people that he's known FOR YEARS??? Doesn't he trust anybody if they're not from his daddy's or his inner circle?

Why the hesitation to select outside the box? It is mind boggling.