I don't think her intent was to argue AGAINST Roberts. Anyone who takes that from this article is buying the line that questioning Bush's nomination of Roberts is attacking Roberts. I got from this article that she wanted to understand why Roberts was the nominee instead of a clearcut conservative.
I think that's a legit question. Especially since the GOP has nominated so many Kennedy-Souter-O'Connor-Warren types before.
Obviously, plenty of people here disagree and think it's inappropriate to question the White House when it comes to SCOTUS. I wonder if those folks were also with the White House regarding the SCOTUS' Kelo and Grutter decisions.
So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?
That is my take too, she did not arguemnet against Roberts, so much as she argued for a tried and true conservative. And she is correct in her argument, Robert may turn out to be a good conservative, her argument was why take the chance, why not nominate a no questions asked good conservative. It is a very good argumnet.
She said that there's a Souter in Robert's cloths.
Souter -- not good.
I think that's a legit question. Especially since the GOP has nominated so many Kennedy-Souter-O'Connor-Warren types before.
I'll bump to that.