She's really getting hit with recusal in regards to the 2nd's incorporation. Can someone opine on how her recusal would affect the upcoming SCOTUS incorporation case? -- i.e. would her recusal tip the scales in our favor?
The main issue is not immediate changes she will have as far as the 2nd is concerned. The issues will be in the future. She is 54 years old, and women generaly live longer than men. The position is a lifelong appointment.
She could end up being a justice for around 30 years.
Her positions have always been against the 2nd, her views as stated and available through her career are the academic liberal views as ArmedBear stated earlier.
In fact while she thinks she has a unique opinion and unique experiences in her statements, her views seem to be extremely stereotypical, and her insight beyond what she has been taught through formal education very limited.
Not very smart for a Supreme Court Justice.
You might think that is good because she would be less capable of articulating arguments against higher caliber justices, but at the same time it means she will be stubborn in her education formed views.
She is very educated and experienced, but that is not the same as possessing a high intellect.
It means she will be less capable or willing to view perspectives of another time period, with another culture, and with views like those possessed by the founders when they wrote the Constitution. Which is an important part of deciding cases that are unique and outside previous education.
To think within the spirit of the founders.
Additionaly her racial remarks are troublesome. Every single one of the founding fathers was a white male, the very type of person she claimed she is superior to in making certain decisions. Not only that, but from a different time period, with different concerns, etc with many other reasons to dismiss what they said if someone is so inclined...
So maybe she will make better decisions on what our rights are than any of them ever could?
That view is dangerous not so much for the racism itself, but because it shows she may have some contempt for the capabilities of the founders and the documents they produced. Documents she will be tasked with interpreting in ways that decide the rights the government will recognize.
That would make her less likely to preserve them, and more likely to "improve" them as she sees fit.