She is a highly qualified candidate, fully prepared and capable of sitting on the bench. She is a strict constructionist who will faithfully follow the constitution, who understands the limited role of judges and will support that limited role.
She will, in short, be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
What PROOF do you have otherwise? You will of course ask me what my proof is, and I won't answer you.
You want a fully qualified nominee to withdraw because you aren't comfortable with her.
Fortunately, most people aren't with you.
Where do I begin? Her disdain for the Federalist Society when she wasn't a candidate for SCOTUS, her support for quotas, her sponsorship of feminazi law school speakers...all of this and much more in spite of a "lack of a paper trail" make me believe she is very far from the Scalia/Thomas mold.
There are thousands of Americans who are equally qualified (and not just in the practice of law), and there are tens (if not hundreds) of suitable candidates who are better qualified. Just browsing through top 10 law school (including non-Ivy shools like UT-Austin, UM-Ann Arbor, UCLA, etc) graduation rankings circa 1980 would be a great starting point...