"She pressed hard for solutions, and she was the one who would come up with alternatives," said Mike Daniel, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs. "She clearly perceived the need for a remedy."
My personal guess is that she will not be a Scalia, a Thomas or even a Roberts. She may agree with them from time to time, but she will go off the reservation when she is persuaded that "justice" for the plaintiffs deserves more than the justice the law and the constitution demand.
The benevolent "desire" is a strong desire in all persons. You need great intellectual fortitude on the Supreme Court to protect the constitution from your own compassion, and to place the object of that compassion where it belongs, in the legislatures.
My thoughts exactly. Based on this report, she seems to see herself as strident on life, but very flexible on social justice issues. I suspect she will care more about social outcomes than a more rigid test of constitutionality, and there you have the makings of an O'Connor or Earl Warren.
I think your comments are prescient. Someone up the thread mentioned poor blacks. Roughly 80% of babies born to black mother are illegitimate. But a couple of generations ago - Before Welfare - that was not the case. The problem is not lack of money or lack of laws. The problem is lack of morality, not lack of money.
I also don't like the desire for the "right result". A SCOTUS judges shouldn't be aiming for results or outcomes.