There is no way this woman is not qualified. What they teach you in law school, essentially, is what an appellate judge does. You read hundreds of cases, and discuss what they mean and the logic behind them.
So every graduate of law school really has the training to be an appellate judge, although possibly not the temperament. And it's really not something that you get better at with experience. In fact, if anything it's the opposite. The longer you sit on the bench, the more you come to think that it's your opinion that's important, and not the legislature's.
Many of us are not questioning that she is qualified. There are many others who are FAR MORE qualified and PROVEN conservatives.
What people forget is that ALL USSC cases are appeals.
ALL law books contain APPEALS.
EVERY SINGLE lawyer is SUPPOSED to be able to teach a class on any core aspect of law. This INCLUDES constitutional law.
I think much of the objection is that they "King's Courtiers" feel slighted that they are exposed as not having the kings ear after all.
Seriously ALL levels of judicial nomination are who do you know. ALL OF THEM. If you don't have buddies on the judicial qualifications pannel, if you don't have insiders during any state or federal vetting process, you are not going to be a judge.
This is just a game of Cowboys vs Pundits.
Gee....she must know NOTHING about what our PResident wants from a judge he nominates....nothing at all...just WISH our President had consulted with YOU!
Or, the lack thereof...