God is a liberal! I understand your a liberal and therfore, are clueless.
But do actually believe God would be pro abortion? Don't be so stupid.

As for the criticism that she ruled against the city on the promotional test for firefighters, I would suggest that there is precedent for that. There has been a lot of "noise" around tests skewed for or against particular ethnic groups. i.e. the poll tests prior to the '60's that were purposely used to exclude blacks from voting. Without actually seeing the test, no one would probably know if it was skewed or not.

I suspect looking at the prior decisions she has made that she is not as liberal as I would like, but I believe that we will never know how liberal or moderate she is until she serves. All we can realy do is make sure that, in the majority of cases, she conformed to the letter of the law in her decisions. All judges make mistakes (after all they're human), but has she consistently enforced the law. So far in the examples of the hundreds of rulings she has made, I have not seen anything that leads me to believe she did not consistently follow the law. THAT IS WHAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON. DID SHE CONSISTENTLY RULE ACCORDING TO THE LAW?

Alternatively, you could read her resume or a few of her opinions, then refer to facts when posting. Oh, and btw, you lost the last election. Don't forget that ok? You lost. Oh, and one more thing, you lost by a lot.

Read more. Talk less.

All in all, about what I expected. A liberal leaning judge with a lot of experience and hailing from one or more 'minority' groups ('women' are not a minority, but they do fall under this category politically). That she was appointed by H.W.Bush is a nice extra, lending some weight to the 'moderate' label that several of her decisions seem to fit.

Yes, she's come out with several liberal judgments, but she's also come out with some conservative ones. Hence the 'moderate' label. If she didn't have any liberal judgments, she'd be called 'conservative', and if liberal and conservative judgments were in equal measure then she'd just be called moderate. I'm confused why some here are pointing out a couple liberal judgments, ignoring the rest of her history, and claiming that that makes her an 'extremist'.

No, I'm not entirely comfortable with her, but she seems to be more or less exactly what I expected, and a darn sight better then some of W's appointees. I'm confused how anyone here is surprised or upset by this nomination. Pleased or displeased, sure, but still.