No, an "elitist" is someone who accepts a resume as shorthand for merit.
In this case, her "merit" is not known to either of us. Her "merit" lies in her views on the Constitution, and those are largely unknown outside the POTUS' inner circle.
You may argue that the pick is poor BECAUSE we cannot evaluate her, but that is quite a different argument.
Since we KNOW, beyond a doubt, that the right resume has zero correlation to an ability to read the plain meaning of words, we KNOW that her resume, or lack of one, is immaterial to her merit to serve on the Court.
What's more, this lack of correlation has been a centerpiece of conservative criticism of court picks for decades now.
Now, suddenly, it is important that a court pick be "accomplished"?
I don't care if she is "accomplished". I want her to be a good judge. THE LAST 50 YEARS OF SCOTUS HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO.
So, given that, what to do?
Answer: pick someone who is competent in the law but who you know PERSONALLY will read the document the way it is written. And that is what Bush did.
Has she ever been a good judge? She's never been a judge at all, but let's start her off on the Supreme Court and see how she does.
I do care if she is "accomplished," and according to some around here that makes me an elitist. Show me her merits as a judge? They can't. As a Constitutional scholar? They can't. Even as a conservative, which I consider a clear sign of high intelligence---they can't demonstrate her merit in that either. What's left? She knows how to latch on to George W. Bush, the most brilliant man she ever met.