I didn't write that quote you are responding to.
It was a hypothetical.
We have a nomination where a candidate is too much of an unknow wrt judicial philosophy, although the President claims to know and trust that judicial philosophy based on years of personal interaction.
Based on that unknowns, people are painting hypothetical outcomes, good, bad, otherwise. I think some of the conservatives need to either (a) calm down or (b) understand a little logic.
Dont just assume the best, dont assume the worst, and dont simply jump to a conclusion and declare it the only possible truth. If we "dont know" then we just dont know.
Some people seem to be going from
"We dont know her judicial philosophy" ... therefore "she's a bad nomination" ... to "since she's a bad nomination, she'll *surely* be a bad justice". The latter is not necessarily true.
She may work out badly. She may work out fine. We just don't know.
This whole process is designed to avoid a principled discussion. Our leaders are playing judicial roulette.