I didn't see her grade for common sense. It would be the only one of real interest to me.

She got a B-minus in Torts, as did I. This is a sign of genius.

I just want to know whether she's smarter than a wise latina.

Yeah but how did she do on con law? That's far more useful for being a Supreme.

Where is her birth certificate?

As long as she has empathy and doesn't let the law get in the way, I think we're good.

Does she understand simple English phrases like:

Congress shall make no law
Shall not be infringed
the right of the people
particularly describing
public use
speedy and public trial
the right of trial by jury
retained by the people
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thanks
JK

Harvard, schmarvard...

I think she's Michael Moore's evil twin.

Think about it...

wait... that may be an oxymoron.

or, possibly, just a moron.

...empathetically speaking, she's perfect.

Thank God for empathy -without it we'd be saddled with the Constitution.

Yeah, we'd better off with some more Bush guys. They're all about the Constitution, especially when corporations and rich white people need it.

Because these guys aren't deserving of their 6th amendment right to due process, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html

They served the time given them after being found guilty in a public trial. Why can the government keep them locked up forever?

We've gone from nominating SCOTUS justices that were chosen mostly for their skills in their profession, to ones whose only qualification necessary seems to be that their politics are closely aligned to the President making the nomination. And obviously, some justices are more than ever attempting to time their retirements to produce a replacement that is more aligned with their views. Think about some of the past justices (and one present justice) who didn't fit this model:
William Brennan (Eisenhower)
Byron White (Kennedy)
Harry Blackmun (Nixon)
John Paul Stevens (Ford)
David Souter (Bush I)

I don't know that we'll have such nominations again in the near future. And I don't know that we can get back to what we had before, as both parties are guilty of this practice - for every Republican nominated Bork, Myers, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, you can name a Democratic nomination that is likewise polarized. It's probably the Roe v. Wade effect on the court reaching out 37 years later; with a slim margin of votes currently upholding it, every seat counts, and no President wants to be the one to cause an unfavorable outcome to their party.