[Frank T]

The problem wasn't that it was an opinion from a Freeper, but that fact that it was a ruse designed to look like an indepentent media article that caused my incredulity.

The article was an attempt to by-pass the very well-thought out type of argument you advocate, as if to silence principled critics of this SCOTUS nomination.

[maryz]

Moderator, do you think you might add "Vanity" to the title? Of course, anyone who clicks on it sees that immediately . . .

[been_lurking]

but that fact that it was a ruse designed to look like an indepentent (sic) media article

LOL

How in the world did you decide that this was a "ruse"?

I'm betting most saw it for what is was -- a simple vanity.

[Les_Miserables]

Frank, don't take this personally but principled critics of this nomination will do their homework, not work from rumors, and make an honest attempt to understand the person involved, the political landscape, and Bush's thinking in nomination her. Not, descend to ad homonym personal attacks, unresearched assertions, and petty whining about wanting a fight the outcome of which could not be guaranteed. Really principled Freepers will engage in rational discussion of her qualifications, her likely positions on the issues, the disarray of the republican Senate, and the primary objective of turning the direction of the SCOTUS, while not disparagin the informed opinion of other Freepers. Your mileage may vary.