I suppose that's all relative. Obama is NOT going to pick a GOOD choice.
Someone that passes judgment based on the rule of law and the Constitution is what we need. Instead she will rule based on how she feels the law will affect people.
This whole concept opens up not just legislating from the bench but deciding different outcomes based solely on the people involved, not the facts of the case.
Instead of Equal Justice, we will get Social Justice.
She is not the wackiest pick Obama could make but she is not the best. Like I said, no one he picks will actually be good. I am hoping he ends up picking someone over 80 years old...
It depends on your perspective of the role of a Supreme Court Justice. If you believe in the intent of the Founders, and that the role of a Justice is to impartially review the facts of a case against the language and intent of the U.S. Constitution and statutes where applicable, the answer is a resounding no. If you want a lesbian socialist without judicial experience wrote her Princeton undergraduate thesis on socialism and will issue opinions based upon "the social good" or similar "progressive" justifications, then the answer is yes.
Confused? As Dean at Harvard she demonstrated that she has no respect for the First Amendment by banning military recruiters from campus because she found the "don't ask - don't tell" policy deeply offensive.
My thought was that when I clicked on your profile I'd see some hour glass T&A.
My point, the media claims she's a moderate, but my guess she's a flaming freaking liberal that's gonna let murderers go and make abortions mandatory.