[Cboldt]

Come on, you're on a thread about a critic who tries to treat her casual writings as professional ones (dishonesty anyone?) and when he can't deride the style of her only professional writing cited makes the absurd criticism that whether the court of the legislature set caps on lawyer fees isn't a separation of powers issue!

Both sides are ridiculous. There are no hard facts to go on. She is truly a stealth nominee.

Actually, it is the "fact finding and rational discussion" side that agrees with your last point. That she truly is a stealth candidate. ANd therein lies the primary and fatal flaw in the nomination.

[AmericaUnited]

Actually, it is the "fact finding and rational discussion" side that agrees with your last point. That she truly is a stealth candidate.

To whom? The person who has the constitutional duty/authority/privilege to nominate says he knows her very, very well. Many people who have worked with her, or know her personally over a long period of time, support her strongly. So where in the Constitution is the requirement that the nominee must be well known to 'the people' and 'the people' must approve? Did I miss that somewhere?