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.
Truth is a paper trail tells you nothing, and so does any investigation done with no paper trail. The Stevens Precendent destroys all confidence one might have in anyone.
And that does mean Anyone.
A strict constructionist could become an activist. An activist could become a strict constructionist.
Is it a crap shoot?
Yes. All you can do is try to adjust the odds and you can adjust those by not very much. Is a 20 year personal relationship an inferior way to adjust those than a paper trail? The precedents say no. Few if any nominations based on personal knowledge of an individual have been made so we don't know if they work. We have many nominations made from paper trail and we know that many of those do not work.
Given a technique that you know has failures vs a technique that you do not know has failures, clearly the 2nd technique is superior.
I know there are better arguments than these.
She has no disdain for the federalist society, that is a lie and you would know it was a lie if you actually examined the record. You base that lie on stuff you read from WND which is based on a transcript of testimony she gave back in 1989-90 where she said she would not be a member of the federalist society because of the stigma attached to such membership. SOmething that most certainly was true for a democrat in texas in the late 80s.
She has been firmly on board with the Federalist Society for years now. Don't take my word for it. She has been vetting all the nominees. Leo Leonard, of Federalist Society, says she has firmly supported them and their goals. She has spoken on record of her support, back before she was nominated. She has worked closely with members while working to pick nominees and vet them.
AN argument against that starts with a blatant falsehood is hardly a good way to convince anybody she should withdraw.
Your "support for quotas" is also highly misleading. Again, it is from 1989-90. We DO need to ask her what her views are on this subject, but the transcript does not show support for quotas specifically, although it is supportive of the "necessity" for more minority representation.
I happen to think that more minority representation in politics is a good thing, so it doesn't bother me much that she took the position. But to suggest that her 1990 support for increased representation of minorities means that she NOW supports QUOTAS again shows the absurdity of her withdrawl.
Your third point is guilt by association, and devoid of factual support (liar liar). She supported the CREATION of a "women's study" thing at SMU, named after a woman lawyer of apparently great acheivement (and not a feminazi).
That group HAS since invited a lot of liberal females to speak. But there is no evidence that she supports "sponsorship" of those people. I will note that I happen to think that liberal women lawyers have A RIGHT to speak at colleges, because I'm a big first-amendment freak. But there is no evidence she sponsored these speakers. Of course, the inuendo is that not only did she support them, she must agree with them.
OK, 0-3. I see why you wrote your senator to get this person withdrawn. God forbid we find out you had no clue what you were talking about.
I agree that there is a lack of a published paper trail that we can see. I expect the hearings to reveal what we need to know. That is the "wait-and-see" position.
Your position is that she should withdraw because a lot of LOUD people with BIG audiences are spreading lies about her record.