it might be this

B is the correct answer

but there was a good explanation

@TaLoN132 not sure if he was talking about this, but his explanation was that she was making an argument that was construed, but not making it as a serious argument (i.e someone gave a challenge to make the argument, and she did her best)

it might be another scandalous thing though

Are you talking about in the video?

yea

No... It was a prepared lecture that she gave at that conference.

She was talking about Textualist/Originalists and this was presented almost as an aside, if I remember correctly.

OK am listening

how long do I have to listen

the only thing I heard her say is that if Obama replaces Scalia, it would be a sea change in the court

"the symbolic nature of that flip would be significant"

did that strike you as objecting to his ability to select a justice?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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