It would depend on what I learned about the candidate before election day. If I felt he was the best for the job, I would have no qualms voting for him. Now, Congressman "Cooter" at the moment does not share my beliefs, so I wouldn't vote for him. That's my job, to learn about the candidates before I cast my vote. Unfortunately, I don't get to pick SC nominees, but I do get to vote for the Presdient who will.
I did, he did, and we go forward from here.
Tell me again, why should I not support her so far?
My scenario is assuming that we know that Cooter from Dukes of Hazzard is a Republican and a Christian and that's all we have to go on. Do you laud the GOP for maUking such a crafty pick? Or do you say, "wait a minute - who's at the wheel here? We don't know a damned thing about this person and you just nominated him for president?"
Unfortunately, I don't get to pick SC nominees, but I do get to vote for the Presdient who will.
Assuming that in voting for a particular president, you are reasonably assuming he will also reflect the party's desire for a particular tone to the Supreme Court by nominating judges who share the same philosophy (what the hell is power for anyway?), you think the President gets pass on this because, "oh well, he's the president?"
Tell me again, why should I not support her so far?
Because she is clearly not the best qualified to hold such a critical position that determines the course of law going forward in a society threatened by the decay of gay marriage, abortion, eminent domain and gun control.
I don't care if she unzips her face to reveal the twin of Anton Scalia. She's not qualified, when there's a bullpen of tried and true originalist judges who actually fit the job description of "jurist". Bush just told every one of these competent, qualified judges, "I trust the ability of a career lawyer/politician on the Supreme Court better than yours."
It's a disgrace.