No, she won't.
But there are some very consequential things that are very ripe for Supreme Court jurisprudence.
1. Second Amendment, mentioned in the article.
2. Affirmative Action, direct preference for some races over others.
3. Obamacare and the entire idea the Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to create laws for everything in the country, essentially denying the entire idea of separation of powers of the Federal government and the states.
Longer term, she is likely to aid in reigning in the Administrative State.
The Chevron doctrine needs to be reexamined, and justices have hinted they are willing to do so. This might be a start of enforcing the non-delegation doctrine inherent in Congress' legislative power.
We may even see an examination of doctrine that anything may be said of public figures, without fear of slander or libel lawsuits.
My understanding is that those cases address specific issues within a specific law. That is, most of it is severable—which we know was discussed during the hearings.
I had this conversation with a daughter of mine who is scared to death she will lose her health insurance by Christmas. It is maddening that she is going for her masters degree and she doesn’t understand how any of this works. I love her more than my own life...but Jeeze. LOL.
The ONLY way some of the big cases will come before is if they are new and address new state or federal laws.
There is a reason Heller and Citizens United were such rare and big deals.
Most of the cases before the court are mind numbing boring and insignificant to most everyone.