[Do not dub me shapka broham]

But see, the only criteria by which we can judge her are her are the years in private practice and her tenure as White House Counsel.

Even if we concede that those are exemplary, it still doesn't yield any concrete information that might tell us what her overriding judicial philosophy is.

All we have to go by are, as you mentioned, "clues."

For me, that's just not satisfactory.

[AnAmericanMother]

All I'm saying is, if her judicial philosophy is the point under discussion, let's not get sidetracked into whether her career is "stellar enough" to warrant a USSC appointment.

I would think a White House counsel would have a lot of philosophical paper trail. We just can't see it because of attorney-client privilege. A stealth candidate indeed.

It really boils down to whether you think Bush would keep his promise. Now, he has been pretty good about doing exactly what he has said he was going to do, although I am not happy about the stuff he hasn't talked about but has done or failed to do (like spending, and failing to deal with the border issue). But up until now he has by and large kept his express promises.

And if she's worked for him for years, and helped him with the judicial nominating process, it's highly likely that he knows what her judicial philosophy is, even if we don't.