"My thought on that is: given her "city council" service - how would she have ruled on the Kelo vs. New London eminent domain case that was so egregious that it energized conservatives this year? I have no idea. But if I had to guess, and we do have to guess because she has no "paper trail", I would guess that most city council like eminent domain power and she would have voted the way the majority did vote. The wrong way."
Interesting. You make me think of a point that's being somewhat overlooked, or at least I havn't seen it discussed. There's been a great deal of talk about her political and religious background -- she's pro-life, she's born again, she was on the city council, lottery commission, etc.
None of this tells me anything about her JUDICIAL philosophy, which is the one we're supposed to care about. I want a Justice who approves constitutional legislation and strikes down unconstitutional legislation. I thought CJ Roberts had a record that indicated he was a judge along those lines. I really have no idea whether she would be, but some of the arguments in her favor that I'm seeing, like those discussed above, don't really move me.
I agree. However, your desire to have her approve constitutional legislation and strike down unconstitutional ones hinges on one question:
Can she adequately and reliably tell the difference? That's part of what George Will was arguing - that her credentials, training, and intensity are not enough to ensure that.
If she can't adequately tell the difference and defend her position, she'll be influenced by her more scholarly, and possibly liberal, peers' opinions.
I think it's almost a sure thing that she'll start out of the box as a constitutionalist. But will she stay that way?