Not a bad choice. Certainly not one that should scare Democrats too much. Two reasons:
She is a self styled originalist. She like Scalia's philosophy. She has written that she did not think that Roe V. Wade should be overthrown but rather that the question really is who pays for abortions. That is the first thing.
I'm pro-life and I want abortion made illegal ideally speaking
. As I've said to you before, a more just system takes care of everybody-although Socialist countries failed in this specific area generally speaking. But what is most reprehensible is violating a Christian's conscience and making them foot the bill for what they consider a manifest evil. It may even have to be tolerated, but it doesn't make it right.
The second reason that she should not scare democrats is that nothing serves to energize their base like a threat to Roe V. Wade.
It would throw it back to the individual States, is all.
A smart republican would not want Trump to appoint someone before the election just for this reason. Sadly there aren't any smart republicans to speak of and Trump sees everything in the light of his poll numbers with his base.
Robert Viguerie proposed the same idea.
It is time for the democrats to realize that the US is essentially a conservative country and will be for about another 25 years or so. They need to stop the barn burning and go at republicans on two fronts; integrity and white middle class values. They won't to their peril.
You have to start with the idea that truth and integrity are absolutes to begin with. Neither side seems to get that much, ironically except for Trump's targeted voters; working class/middle class people, the ''deplorables'' that are ''clinging to their bibles and their guns''. Like they are sub-human and hated (which many on the fake ''left'' absolutely do).
But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.