Disturbing article

I read it and found nothing disturbing (except the ending about Fogelman’s precedent). You can’t rebel against judges who implement a leftist agenda and at the same time rebuke a judge who doesn’t implement a rightist agenda. He is consistent in being conservative, even if it doesn’t come out “rightist.” Conservatism is a legal approach and therefore legitimate in the reasoning of a ruling, rightists – not. I’m all for it, and Stein’s rulings seem incredibly logical and consistent to me.