You're as daft as they come, gadfly.
If she does not turn out as advertised, then the person/idiot that picked her must be made an example of.
I checked the context. You called the President an idiot who picked her [Miers].
If you're going to criticize the President on the basis that you disagree with his personal experience with a nominee, while rebuff any criticisms of your own views based on your personal experience with judges in general, you're asking for a double standard to be applied.
The point I'm making is that you've joined the hysterics in jumping to conclusions about a nominee we don't know very much about, but what we do know is that she is a conservative lawyer with a lot of practical experience. You don't trust the President's decision because you can't vet her personally and have no record on which to base a decision.
If one thing can be said for the President's judicial picks, they have been conservative and they have been constructionists. There is no reason to expect that he has changed his criteria.
Tell you what, write down my handle and email me when she turns out to be a Souter. Until then I won't be apologizing for calling you on your irrationality, which is the definition of daft that applies. You on the other hand called the President an "idiot" which was quite clear.