I got all the way to 15:00 and I couldn't find anything crazy

she's just explaining the politics of the court AFAICT

I guess I should have said about 9:25 on

I’ve watched that video before, she never says it’s Scalia’s seat. She is just worried about where the court will go if liberal non originalist thinking takes over

Which is now the opposite

at 10:01.... "But the symbolic significance is that it is HIS seat. So, he is the face... really... he is the face of this originalist textualist approach..."

not seeing anything objectionable

yea I think you are misunderstanding his stress

she means "his" as opposed to another conservative

she isn't saying he owns the seat

that is a really silly understanding of what she is trying to say

That’s how I understand it too

just listen 5 more minutes

and you will see

she is detailing the politics of the court

that's all

the fact that scalia's seat was to be flipped would mean something very significant, that's all she is saying

She was downplaying the fact that it would have changed the balance of the court, because the more important issue to her was that it was HIS seat as the face of their approach.

she is really explaining elementary level politics

yes

but she wasn't saying Obama _can't_ change it

nor that he _shouldn't_

she was saying that when he did change it, it would be a huge shift

she is really just being descriptive in all her projections

she goes on to talk about who clinton would choose, or trump would choose

just trying to project the future of the court in each case

She is just advocating for originalist approach. Which I still don’t really get but I don’t misteadcwhat she is trying ti say ..

My point was that RGB was every bit the icon Scalia was - arguably more - and she was happy to ignore her lofty concerns about affecting the balance or replacing an icon with someone that was not of a similar philosophy. I felt it was hypocritical and did not bode well for her integrity.

she wasn't even advocating for it

she was just saying that it would be a shift

what

I don't know what your objection is, but I suspect I would not agree with it

molehill => mountain is what this feels like

RGB is an icon for judicial activism

^

she was assuming RGB would be replaced by Clinton

it wouldn't be a change at all

she is talking about activist vs textualist/originalist

And I don't think there's a deeper meaning to choosing scalia. ACB could have just as easily chosen RGB as well. She simply chose not to

she is a fan of scalia

obviously