Reply #44: We don't need dirt. We need something substantive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I'm not saying we have to find out that she was convicted of prostitution in 60's to fight her nomination. But we do need more than "Bush nominated her - she must be an extremist!" to wage a meaningful battle.

Why is it a faulty assumption to believe Bush voters share his goals for the Supreme Court? Perhaps not all of them do, but the fact that they voted for Bush means they're at very least not inclined to automatically DISLIKE his nominees either. Again, a lot of these potential Democrats (for lack of a better term) obviously didn't see Bush as being all THAT radical if they voted for him and if we have a chance to win them over. We need proof that SHE is a radical if we want to fight her, because we obviously haven't proven to them that BUSH is a radical. Otherwise, we're just proving their claim that we'll fight anyone he nominates blindly just for the sake of fighting. And that's why I think Bush nominated a stealth candidate - because we can't PROVE that she's as radical as she probably is, and thus, we can't really fight her.