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

I don't see the issue

Any decision that checks legislation could be viewed as activism, but isn't that the point of the court? To be a check to ensure balance?

That checks legislation on what grounds

that isn't what activism is

activism is where you put your morals first and interpret second

That's the key issue when it comes to allegations of judicial activism. On what grounds

activism is where the court determines that somewhere in the constitution is buried the idea of a guaranteed right to abortion, which the states cannot override

In Brown v Board of Education, the law as legislated was for segregation. This is cited as an example of Judicial Activism, but if segregation is unconstitutional, why is this activism?

that is a case of more ambiguity I think

it really depends if separate can be equal

and that is up to interpretation

Are you guys familiar with Torres vs Madrid? Uncivil Law and Rekieta covered the oral arguments the other day. They are still deciding what is seizure .. That’s why I’m not sure that originalists/textualist interpretation is fully possible.

I don't mind the judges making such judgement calls (hopefully based on evidence)

nope

where true ambiguity exists, it is the role of the court to come up with something consistent