If states go too far and pass spending limits that are too low, that might be seen as an effort to entrench incumbents.

There is a real question of whether nine unelected federal judges know exactly what's best for Vermont politics, and maybe local politicians have a better sense of what's best for local politics. This is a tension between expressive rights on one hand, and the ability of local citizens to control the election rules in their own states and communities.

This was just a first step. There is more work to do.

I think it showed her the human side of the legal issues she'll confront. The question is: Who will she be as a judge? Will she bring those same sensitivities to the bench as a judge? My hope is that she will - just as Justice O'Connor did.

There's an acknowledgement in her comments that race matters and is relevant, and from a fairness standpoint, we should acknowledge the impact of a particular political structure on voters of color. It's not unlike something you could see Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying. A rigid quota system may be bad, but diversity is a compelling interest, and we want institutions to reflect society as a whole.

If the court says this particular spending limit in Vermont is unconstitutional but there may be cases in which spending limits are warranted, that would certainly be a victory for the parties defending this law.