Replies

I did see that post. So that makes her a lawyer turned politician, nothing more. What is completely lacking in her history is any scholarship in Constitutional Law. Unlike Rehnquist, she has never clerked for a Federal judge. Unlike Roberts she has never argued before the Supreme Court. It appears that she has never been confronted with Constitutional issues in her experience at all. Sure, she may subscribe to some vague platitudes about "framer's intent", but does she have any idea how she would apply that in a complex case involving over a mundane dispute with conflicting precedents and Constitutional principles?

She doesn't have the kind of foundation gained from years of serious study and application of Constitutional Law. She is going to have to "discover" herself on the Court, regardless of what Bush says. And when it comes to actually interpreting and applying Constitutional Law, she may discover she is a liberal.

Does she have a philosophy over which amendment has primacy, the 9th or the 10th? What if she hears a case where the two conflict? What will she do? Has she ever even considered that? Did President Bush consider that when he chose her? Or did he just "like her style"?

And just how well can Bush "know her heart" when it seems not even she does?