Something that struck me with most of the complaints was that she was not a 'firebrand', and that people didn't think she would 'fight' against the Democrats. Why does everything have to be a battle? Would someone who got into a yelling match with Up-Chuck Schumer actually turn out to be a better jurist? Why do WE feel the need for validation by someone who we believe would be more 'in your face' to the Democrats.
It is my belief that a woman who has had to deal with Texan men for her entire career will be plenty strong enough to deal with the effete Dems on the Judiciary Committee. They probably will never know what hit them. They are so used to dealing with abrasive, aggressive women such as the feminist leaders, Barbara Boxer and Her Heinous, that they won't know how to handle a soft spoken woman who, according to accounts by those who have known her for years, will likely be wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Agreed.
I was convinced before the President even nominated ANYONE for this position, before he nominated Roberts, that none of the super-vocal conservatives would be happy with a choice unless it provoked a fight. Many are aching for a knock-down, drag-out discussion about the role of the Supreme Court and the judiciary and an opportunity for that philosophical discussion, not a discussion about the qualifications of a particular candidate.
This explains every objection to Miers we've been seeing, and every objection to Roberts. It also explains the reaction to "the Gang of Fourteen" pulling that issue out of the Senate discussion, and that desire was very much in evidence during that time. Many are still not happy that Owen, Pryor and Brown were confirmed without the fight!
Some people aren't happy about simply winning - they want blood in the streets as evidence that they won - never recognizing how counter-productive that can be in gaining further support to their cause.