But the thing about her is that she seems to be very good at separating her personal views from the LAW of the US. She seems to be more dedicated to the Rule Of Law than most appointees. If she holds to that we won't have any problems.
So how do we know this? She has been in no real position of authority by which we can judge this. Indeed, she illegally barred military recruiters from campus when she was dean. Even as Solicitor General, she only makes arguments favorable to the U.S. Government's position. This is not an inconsequential position, but she is not in a position where she issues rulings and from which we can determine whether she follows the rule of law. If she had judicial experience, we would know. But she hasn't and we can't. That's why she is the perfect "stealth" candidate.
And remember that as a Supreme Court Justice, she would be making the law, not following precedent from a higher court. And, yes, I do mean making the law. Every time a judge interprets a statute or a law, he or she is making the law. That's what our common law system is about.