It’s hard to discuss a political creature without getting "political" and this one’s record is skimpy for a SCOTUS nominee except for her political associations. What record she has would normally be less important and not brought up … BUT in her case, she has had so little a judicial impact, that the small details must be examined (if you set aside her having had negligible judicial impact a disqualification for such an important position).
Anyway, the heck with dread and fear, or anger for that matter ... unless it motivates people to do something. IMO people need to get motivated, and apply pressure to their congressman, the press, etc. … to force release of obscure documents so there’ll be something to argue about besides politics. Right now, the main thing we know of her is her political associations.
We know she worked for the Clinton Administration Domestic Policy Council as a deputy domestic policy adviser under Bruce Reed. As any bureaucrat does, she produced volumes of paperwork during her time there.
The Clinton Presidential Library has begun to dribble out some documents, but not much.
IMO, they need to be pressured to release much more.
She was also on the board of governors of the Chicago Council of Lawyers from 1993 to 1995. Where is the paper trail on her time there?
Right now, she is little more than a political creature because that’s mainly what know about her.
If her associations and contributions are considered as part of her record…
((((self-edited to avoid listing a bunch of anti-gun politicians))))
I send money to groups and politicians that represent my views, including on 2A Rights, and suspect she does the same.
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...