I have the same problem with these "facts" that I have with similar statements of support. Most of this stuff is extrapolation from events without context framed and worded to elicit a specific response. In this case negative..Have seen similiar stuff to elicit a positive response. I suppose the reason we are dealing in what I call "nits and lice" is there are no real positions she has taken that are clearly identified and unambigous and that indicate a specific philosophy. Without those clear positions as a backdrop we are reduced to reading the fairly sparce tea leaves and the beauty of the beholder becomes highly debateable. For example I am more troubled that she supported a forum for feminine advancement than that the first speaker in that forum (whom she probably did not pick) was a radical leftist Gloria Steinem. That shows me more about how she might rule on affirmative action cases than whether she is a radical leftist. All of this lack of real data is why I would have to vote no right now if I had a vote.. I still look forward to the hearings hoping they can provide enough insight to change my mind but it may be a stretch.