[Sir Napsalot]

Overall I thought O’Donnell did very well, too. But my own opinion is biased.

I am not too down on her SC answer. Personally I think people expecting an almost-LAWYER-like answer were getting exactly the kind of Congress we had (close to 50% of them are lawyers), way too lopsided representation if you ask me.

The theory is that Lawyers are the ‘logical’ choice to write/propose legislations that eventually become laws. Yet that is not what a law degree from law school should be about, law professors and law school should not ‘train’ future politicians. Either that, or we get somebody so bland (no opinions traceable) to go to SCOTUS itself.

We need to dilute the Congress pool with true representation of the people.

[af_vet_rr]

I am not too down on her SC answer. Personally I think people expecting an almost-LAWYER-like answer

Nobody needed a lawyer-like answer.

O'Donnell spends a fair amount of time complaining about judges legislating from the bench. She should be able to provide a simple example of judges legislating from the bench if she's going to complain about it, otherwise it comes off as a hollow campaign slogan. Pulling a Nobama and saying she'll post it on her website was silly and having to be rescued by Wolf Blitzer with a 40 year old decision was even sillier.

If she actually gets elected, she could be involved in the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices as well, and for somebody with that kind of responsibility, there's no excuse for not being able to come up with a single Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with.

I believe she's into the Tea Party stuff, and Kelo v. New London should have came instantly to mind. Given how much she talks about sexual behavior and morals, Lawrence v. Texas should have came to mind as well.