My main concern is her total lack of experience in Constitutional Law, which to be on the Supreme Court, you'd thik you'd at least have some experience with, I"m undecided leaning towards a negative vote on her.

I'm thinking that there might be other women out there far more qualified than her that just don't know the President, which is unfortunate.

Cheers

Hey Nate,

I agree with you. I'm leaning toward no because of her lack of experience with constitiutional law and her lack of experience of being on the bench.

She may be a fantastic candidate in the president's eyes and she may do a superb job but her lack of credentials is too powerful. Actually I think I'd now change my vote to no.

Well it's all a mooot point now, she just withdrew as a canidate for the Supremem Court...

Cheers

She did? Wow, getting my news through LJ.

I'm Canadian, but I still had strong feelings against the nomination, since I'm a busy-body. It wasn't any objection to her personally or her capabilities in her previous positions, but the fact that appointing someone with no constitutional law experience to the Supreme Court is just a bad idea. No matter how some people disliked the John Roberts nomination, for instance, there was no doubt he had the qualifications to be considered for the job.

I'm Canadian, but I still had strong feelings against the nomination, since I'm a busy-body.

Sidenote: what do you think of this idea that now Passports will be needed to cross our borders?

Apparantly Congress is entertaining this idea and Canada is thinking of selling it's oil to China instead of us because of it. Guess alot of people in Congress never heard of the treaty where we're allies for life with Canada... gits...

Cheers

Being a strict constitutional intentionalist myself, I am "Undecided" on her (as I was with John Roberts) since I do not know if she will view the constitution as it was intended and not as a "living document".