First off, the obvious (and when I say obvious I mean OBVIOUS) implication is that the judge's homepage is Google.
Second, no Google doesn't want that. What you refer to is the genericizing of brand names and it's actually a bad thing, as brands are supposed to be differentiators, but if your brand name is genericized (Kleenex, band-aid, xerox, etc...), it loses the ability to differentiate and you gain negatives from your competitors. e.g. "I hate this xerox machine!!" is bad for Xerox, but could easily be said by someone frustrated with a (for example) HP copier.
The more people know the truth, the worse it looks for the US's "brand".
That is internally consistent in the same, bizarre, doublethink way "Your privacy isn't violated unless you know about it."
The perception is the reality with these guys, rather than, ya know, the reality being the reality. People who change the perception with things like facts are guilty, rather than people who violate the constitution.
Jesus christ, 1984 was meant to be a warning, not a playbook.
Yes, and as I pointed out before, the consequence is potentially devastating. It will massively reduce one's net worth (since most people have most of their "savings" tied up in their house), and your ability to borrow against the property (which is a safety net for many).
To elaborate on your point (cause I'm a pedant), the real problem with this is having your home on that list basically nukes the value of your home. For many people their home is their primary asset. So, with a form, they can destroy the net worth of most people. Land of the what now?