Prior to her job as Solicitor General, she was the Dean of the Harvard Law School. She has little experience arguing cases and has never been a judge. She has almost no paper trail, so it is difficult to nail her down on where she stands on almost all important issues. Which is, most likely, her main selling point for the administration. No skeletons in her closet, unlike most of his other appointees.
Her one skeleton is when she opposed military recruiting on Harvard's campus. This doesn't bode well for her narrative of being a moderate as the press is trying to sell her. It is particularly troubling as she would be replacing the one justice on the bench who has actually served in the military. According to the Center for Military Readiness:
"It is unfortunate that President Obama has chosen to replace the only military veteran on the Supreme Court with extensive wartime experience with a nominee whose only significant record indicated deliberate hostility and opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military."
Her attempt to keep the military off the Harvard campus resulted in the feds threatening to revoke about $400 million in federal grants, and the issue went all the way to the Supreme Court, where not a single Justice supported her argument.
Even so, the press is attempting to paint her as a "moderate liberal". But, then, that's also how they still prefer to project President Obama to the world, even though nowadays most people take that perception with not just a grain, but a boulder of salt. Besides, there is no such animal as a "moderate liberal". Moderate democrats, yes, liberals, no. The very term "liberal" denotes far-left ideology, and there is nothing "moderate" about that.
Let's consider, too, whether Obama would even nominate a moderate, when his track record so far has been one radical after another? It's far more likely that she has just managed to keep her radicalism under the radar than that she is truly moderate in her views.
The fact that it is almost impossible to nail her down on a position should be the main indicator that she should not win appointment. If she is unwilling to put her views and opinions on paper, there must be a reason. Remember, too, that she has been a longtime associate of President Obama's. Considering he refuses to associate with anyone who doesn't share his progressive world view, and most of his inner circle are pretty radical, this doesn't bode well. She is only 50 years old, so if she wins the appointment, she will be on the bench for a few decades. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a candidate whose opinions were more transparent for such a position, considering she will be impacting the country for a long time to come.
As with literally 90% of the Obama Administration (including our esteemed Commander-in-Chief himself), she has little or no real world experience. Combining that with her lack of a paper trail, some serious red flags pop up.
Above and beyond everything else, let's remember that a year and a half ago we elected someone we knew nothing about (or at least just an inkling, which was quickly derided as "paranoia"), including his political ideology, and who had no real world experience to speak of. A year and a half later, we are realizing the folly of our ways (via American Thinker):
If anyone is surprised by Mr. Obama's incompetence, you have to wonder why. When he was running for the presidency, on what basis would anyone have assumed that he was competent? He had about the thinnest resume of anyone who had ever run for the office, with virtually zero executive experience. He really was the "hope" candidate, elected by voters relying on hope rather than evidence or common sense.
With any luck, whatever moderate/conservatives still exist in the Senate will decide to forgo the "hope" and demand a real nominee with a real track record and real experience. Unfortunately, our Senate is showing us that proof of radicalism means nothing, evidence has no weight in their deliberations, and common sense no longer has a place in our government.
Ultimately, the fact that she adores Obama and has spent the last 15 months or so vigorously defending his radical expansion of executive power should cause concern. Since there are so few precidents that we can judge her on, we should examine each carefully, as well as her devotion to Obama and his agenda. If there's one thing we should have learned from this administration, it's that ideology is far more important than ever before. It seems obvious that she will strive to further his agenda while on the bench - and there are a lot of challenges coming to the Court in the next few years, so her contribution would be vital to his aims.
The Senate should demand a new nominee - one with a verifiable track record and at least a few years of practical, real world experience in a courthouse instead of a classroom. Much like they did with Harriet Miers.