There's never a peep when Democrats, such as the Clinton couple, grossly abuse power while in office. Never. Obama or the Clintons could start seizing (expropriating) the oil companies without any legal or moral justification after the inauguration, and we wouldn't hear a single cluck or peep from the Chattering Classes about executive overreach. More secrecy than Cheney and more ruthless abuse of power — not a single word would we hear. Nothing negative, at least. Many in the media would gush over the new “visionary” “pro-people” kind of administration such actions would “reveal.”

The issue here is that leftist judificial activism still remains a threat in this country, and still has plenty of reactionary, rabid defenders of such illegitimate conduct, and someone like Clinton would be one of the most likely to engage in such illegitimate conduct. (Naturally, she'd be supported by the Usual Suspects who want the courts to be political and give them what they can't get the legitimate way, through the legislative process.)

Putting a far-left activist (despite her current “centrist” disguise) on the Supreme Court, where she'd be likely to engage in illegitimate judicial activism, and to put her on there _because_ this would be likely? What a vile idea.

Then again, as always, I'm speaking only for myself.