That's what hearings are for. It's not a requirement that we know everything about a candidate before he/she may be nominated. It is the duty of the Senate to ask the right questions and make the determination of whether enough has been learned to justify confirmation.
Those who can categorically state that she will not be a good judge or that she doesn't hold the correct philosophy are jumping the gun. They can't possibly know that unless they know her personally.
Anyone who can't reserve judgment until the hearings have concluded are basing that judgment on partial information at best. Those that denounce her based on that same partial information are pushing a different agenda, one that says that "information doesn't matter. Don't need that."
"That's what hearings are for."
(sigh) Did you pay no attention to the Roberts confirmation process? We have established, after much effort, that Supreme Court nominees CAN'T answer questions about how they'll vote on specific issues since said issues may soon be adjudicated before the Court. Hence, we will find out little, if any, useful information from the confirmation process, itself.
Don't put words in the mouths of others. My primary objection is that she is not a conservative heavy hitter, that she has not proven an ability to do the intellectual heavy-lifting needed to decide to do the right thing and then to convince others that it is the right thing.
That's what hearings are for.
My issues are primarily other than "predicted performace," but they do flow from the fact that her con-law philosophy is unknown, and she is a crony. The latter point not to be taken in a bad way, but she does owe some of her personal success to her attachment to the President. The crony charge will be leveled and addressed, but it's a discussion that is not the one I'd prefer.
This was a missed opportunity to have a conservative dialog with the public. The nomination shows weakness. The fact that weakness is the reality does not appease my disappointment.