You see, that is precisely the point!
This is-and I think this is in need of further reiteration and ampliflication-the Supreme Court of the United States.
Any nominee to the bench should have a preexisting record that is beyond reproach intellectually, and a corpus of work that speaks for itself.
Whether or not the Democratic obstructionists in the United States Senate-and their febrile allies among doctrinaire leftist interest groups such as the Alliance for Justice and PFAW-will use ideological litmus tests in order to then derail that nomination should not be the animating motive-or even one of several priorities-of the president who chose that person.
The battle should be between those, like Kennedy and Schumer and all of their detestable fellow travelers, who do not believe in the Constitution, and those, like Kyl, Sessions and our fellow Constitutionalists, who do.
I think that the notion of a "stealth" nomination-any nomination, at any time-should be rejected as a matter of principle, but to ask conservatives-or any other segment of the American public, for that matter-to accept a "stealth" nominee who has no assets to speak of-other than than the fact that she has left no tangible evidence of her political or judicial philosophy-is simply unacceptable.
Aye if she were that good an advisor, surely she could have come up with one better candidate than herself.
Wonderful and pure your thoughts they are.
However, you left out one thing: The weasles in the United States Senate who don't have the gonads to confirm a conservative with a paper trail.