"You are right: her business is Law. And her response to Assange's argument that if he were sent to Sweden he would be subject to the risk of extradition etc was to fob him off with "the US have done nothing so far". That's not a proper response, in law or otherwise.
If the court's view is they don't care about what might happen in the future then she should say so. My complaint is with her sidestepping the question. That's for politicians not judges."
You have somehow missed the rest of what she said. The point was also that if he were sent to Sweden and the Americans requested his extradition, the UK would have to agree to it before it could happen.