Here is a tutorial (not the easiest thing to read) of her views.
Does anything in it stand out as possibly scary?
- Focusing on government motives. She argues that campaign finance laws are good because she divines that their motives were good. “They were just trying to stem the ‘excess’ flow of money into politics!” The problem was the unintended consequences. But as long as she thinks she finds people with good motives, even total idiots, what they are doing is fine.
- Inciting others to commit harm is not allowed, but legislation banning flag-burning is legal because she is sure it will never incite others to commit harm.
- If there is an overabundance of an idea, “action disfavoring that idea [would] un-skew public discourse.” “As there are too many right wingers on Talk Radio, so we should un-skew the number of them.”
- Restrictions should focus on whether the person’s ideas are causing “public harm”. Harm is surely very narrowly defined.
- Government should treat all people creating public harm equally. “If we are going to round up one-right winger, we should be fair and round up them all.”
Using this sample of her writings, are you convinced yet that she is worthy of being on the Supreme Court?