And therein lies the problem. No one is saying she's bad or she's great -- they're saying, "We have NO way of evaluating this person, one way or the other. She has no record we can review, no great deposit of public commentary to reflect her judicial philosophy, etc."
Not so bad for Congress/Senate, where the person can be voted out in 2 or 6 years. Critically important for someone who is about to get a lifetime appointment. When it comes to the Supreme Court, the president -- and the citizenry -- can't afford a mistake.
She could be the next Scalia -- or the next Souter. WE DON'T KNOW. Do we want to roll the dice when it comes to Supreme Court appointments?
And, just as important, we're not likely to find out a damn thing in the hearings either - song-and-dance charades that they are.
Brilliant and well said.
Regards, Ivan
Intelligent people would keep their mouths shut until they did know something. It won't do the party any good if Roberts and Miers turn out to be rock solid originalist because the damage will already have been done by all the fools who are going around shooting thier mouths off when they don't know "jack".
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and provide proof.
Which is why the Dems don't either. It would be nice if we could all have secret decoder rings, so we could be told without telling the Dems. But since McCain managed to put the kibosh on our one good chance to eliminate the judicial filibuster, this is reality.
Or she could turn out like George W. Bush .Do nothing on illegal Immigration ,Campaign finance reform or abortion or authorize the government to take over Health care along with prescripion drugs