So I read the links you posted, thank you.

Regarding her paper, she does point out this is in regards to the death penalty, where it would be difficult for a judge to separate their feelings for the case. I don't want another sessions like scenario, but I'm not sure she would have the same stance regarding immigration and feel as strongly about it as sentencing someone to death. It's also a positive thing if a judge feels upfront that they cannot fairly judge a case, they should recuse themselves. The real question to ask her is how often would her feelings get in the way. This paper tells me more that she is unlikely to ever impose the death penalty.

For ruling you linked to regarding lockdowns, while I personally dislike all these lockdowns, this case was not about lockdowns in general but whether there should be exceptions in certain cases due to 1A. I actually find her argument compelling, and I'm not sure that the same cases presented with the same evidence would have another judge rule differently.

On the other hand, the 2A case that rentfREEEE_since2016 posted, I do not find her argument compelling at all. From what I understand, other judges also reviewed that case and came to the opposite conclusion. To me her ruling seemed more to be looking for an excuse to keep more guns out of people's hands.