1 Why don't they just shut up and give the woman a chance.

2 Well, in Goldstein's case it's because in the past Miers has supported affirmative action, and that gives him pause in terms of the window it opens—he feels—into her reasoning process. As I understand it, the concern for many is, "we don't want someone on the bench who might reach some of the right positions for the wrong reasons, because he/she might reach a lot of wrong ones also (for similar wrong reasons)."

3 We all grow up and change, don't we? And Bush did talk to her every day for 10 years...

4 But Bush is a very practical man, and I don't want someone pragmatic on the bench. I think it's just too tempting for a person like that to reason backward, as O'Conner did: this is the best outcome, and here are some arguments I've found to support 'em. That's not what's needed at the SCOTUS level.