This should get it's own thread. If we could avoid the vitriol, there could be a good discussion of the meaning of this testimony, which we have to assume accurately reflected her opinions in 1990 since she was under oath.
I agree with some of what she said (I imagine I would get disgreement with some here), and disagree with other parts.
However, supporting something as a councilman is not the same as ruling on it as a judge. You might push for something in court that you wouldn't call a right.
Someone needs to ask her about this, and what she now thinks, at the hearings. Add this to the list of questions...