There was an entire field of candidates who were young, experienced, intellectually respected, and known judicial conservatives. Instead the President picked someone who was old (less than 15 years younger than the justice she is being picked to replace!), without judicial experience or any other extraordinary experience to make up for it, and intellectually/politically rather blurry and unknown.
To challenge this pick makes someone a truthful, reasoning conservative in my book.
Challenging? yes...attacking and demeaning on
the merest of circumstancial evidence, giving
ammunition to the nattering nabobs of negativity...
does no credit to herself, or to the ideals she
holds.
She is not just differing with the President. Are you reading her statements? She is vicious and savage, way off the deep end. She is more vicious with Miers and GWB than the lowliest scuzzy left winger, and it is not necessary. Just say you disagree and give lucid reasons why. She makes nutcases like Pat Buchanan look sane. She sounds like George Soros could have hired her.
[[To challenge this pick makes someone a truthful, reasoning conservative in my book.]]
The key to your turn of a phrase is the defintion of challenge. Does challenge mean attack, smear, cast innuendo and defame ? Or does it mean to ask questions and seek out more information ? If one's definition of challnge is the former, I suggest one learn the definition of reasoning.