She's an "originalist" who thinks that the 14th and 15th Ammendments are illegitimate. From DKos.
snip
As far as the 14th Amendment goes, it includes what are now referred to as the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. In short, it says that everyone born in the United States is a full citizen, with the full rights due to a citizen, and can’t be deprived of those rights unless they’re given due process of law. All of this makes the 14th Amendment integral to questions of citizenship, and foundational for Civil Rights legislation. It’s such an important amendment, that legal scholars have called it “the second Constitution” for its attempts to tear out the elements of slavery built into the original document. Among other things, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests entirely on the authority granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment.
snip
Back in 2011, The Atlantic took a look at this question and how conservative Republicans became “14th Amendment deniers.” For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it’s not even the most radical view. The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/9/26/1980903/-Why-Trump-s-expected-Supreme-Court-nominee-believes-all-Civil-Rights-legislation-is-illegitimate
Some quotes from Amy's writings, “Congress has to decide whether to … rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment.” “The originalist legislator might have to face questions … such as the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
What happens when the SCOTUS starts throwing out Constitutional amendments that are foundational to the functioning of moders society?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Like Prohibition.
Ruling a Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional is an oxymoron...
But hey, we have one of those for a President right now.
I'd pay extra for front row seats in that little skirmish. 
She's talking about views that a legislator might view as valid. Her opinion in the previous paragraph is that these would never come before the court and the court would properly deny such questions certiori.
The first word in the excised quote in the OP, "Congress," bears contrastive stress--it's the Congress that would be faced with these arguments, not the court. (And she footnotes the source of the arguments; not every mention of something in an academic paper is evidence of support, esp. in a field where odd or opposing views are properly discussed, to be argued against or dealt with as irrelevant).
A page later, "Once a precedent is deeply rooted, challenges die out and the Court is no longer required to deal with the question of the precedent’s correctness. The rules of adjudication, moreover—including the Court’s practice of answering only the questions presented in the petition for certiorari—relieve the Court of any obligation to identify and correct any error that may lurk in a case. The Court employs a variety of techniques that permit it to assume the correctness of some background issues and focus its attention on the ones that are actually controverted. The upshot is that the Court need not confront the question whether foundational precedent ought to be overruled. Members of Congress are differently situated...." This refers back to the odd "questionable" precedents in the OP. Again, the same contrastive focus on "Congress".
In fact, she continues to say that would be unnecessary and even inappropriate for a legislator who adopts an originalist stance to be concerned about such issues as the constitutionality of Social Security funding, the status of West Virginia, or the 14th Amendment. In other words, instead of addressing the issues in the works she cites, she dismisses the question as basically wrong-headed.
Meaning, in other words, that not only does she not adopt the views attributed to her but she actively argues that others who are originalists should not hold them, either. It's like the one CEO who was fired because he said that it was against company policy to use the word _______. To ban the word is to mention it; to mention it is not to endorse it. (And you can tell I just skimmed the danged article because I realize I was primed to clone one of her lines without realizing it.)
This is one of these quotes that somebody cited a while back and now has a disembodied life of its own. I don't blame the Koz writer for not checking into it--it's probably been cut-and-pasted numerous times since somebody actually stopped to think it was in an actual article and isn't the entire text. Then again, the entire text would require more effort and lead to nuance, while the quote adduced is a twitvertisement.
Sometimes you don't have to leave out words in a sentence to change its meaning (like quoting "Under no circumstances should we miss this opportunity to reform the police" as "Under no circumstances should we ... reform the police"
. Sometimes just stripping out the context and recontextualizing it is sufficient.
She doesn't like that?
