Some lemme understand her argument: because the SCt has interpreted the 1st Amendment (something the founding fathers didn’t intend for them to do, btw), government should not be allowed to ban ANY speech a certain percentage of their constituents may find offensive? That’s EXACTLY the type of power the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the federal gov’t from acquiring. Sounds to me like this “professor” doesn’t understand the origins and purpose of the 1st Amendment.
All she knows is that the SCt can now do whatever it wants. Jefferson was absolutely right in the screed he wrote to Marshall after the Maybury v. Madison decision: It did create a slippery slope, and the SCt will forever be making decisions based on the political winds and partisanship. Of course she can’t understand why they should stop here.
“...government should NOW be allowed...”