Barrett is a political pick, not a qualified candidate. She is a crackpot. The USA is not the Vatican.

She is one of several women who moved into the federal judicial system by Trump for the purpose of political choice rather than experience and knowledge.

It is unfortunate that Barrett was nominated for a Supreme Court seat. She is a crackpot. She needs a ministry, not a judicial seat, but, the Catholic Church won't allow women to have a priesthood.

This is an extremely rare photo (click here) where she can be found outside a black robe. She is anti-everything, including democracy. There is absolutely no standing for her PLEDGE to be against stare decisis. There is no one who can change the words in the US Consitution no matter how hard they try. Stare Decisis is a fact, not an opinion. Barrett is a crackpot when she can't even fall into line with stare decisis.

Barrett's opining will frequently stand in opposition to the judicial wisdom of the great Supreme Court Ruth Badar Ginsburg compositions. Barrett's opining is very arbitrary political and not thoughtful.

20 U. Haw. L. Rev. 835 (1998) (click here)
When Is an Innovation in Order: Justice Bader Ruth Ginsburg and Stare Decisis

Predictably so, she is a favorite "Federalist Society" darling. (click here)

Her decisions will be to enslave women to their bodies and oppress their rights and choices in life. A fact of life is that a woman's capacity of reproduction and the degree she engages in pregnancy HAS TO BE LEFT TO THE WOMAN. There isn't anything else to say.

We have seen the tragedy of declaring a fertilized egg a person. There will be investigations into every miscarriage and women will find themselves living alone rather than with a man in or out of marriage. If Barrett has her way, married women will need permits to have intercourse with their husbands in order to become pregnant or she may even demand married people only engage in the assistance of a clinic to become pregnant insuring the child will not be a bastard child.

She has absolutely no experience to have her understand the place of the court in the lives of Americans. She is an originalist which means she sees only wealthy white men have control over the US Constitution. The TONE of this White House exudes only that priority in it's racist stances and promoting violence by White Supremacists.

White Supremacists is proof of this White House leanings into originalist goals.

My views are not alone and not new. She is a known commodity to be a crackpot. She is not qualified nor is her judicial proceedings to date helpful to the people of the USA. Who goes up against the Supreme Court's Chief Justice unless it is to force her nomination as a political favorite.

September 28, 2017

By Laurie Goldstein

One of President Trump’s judicial nominees (click here) became something of a hero to religious conservatives after she was grilled at a Senate hearing this month over whether her Roman Catholic faith would influence her decisions on the bench.

The nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor up for an appeals court seat, had raised the issue herself in articles and speeches over the years. The Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee zeroed in on her writings, and in the process prompted accusations that they were engaged in religious bigotry.

“The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused his colleagues of employing an unconstitutional “religious test” for office.

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning....

Her devotion to religion over the US Constitution is exhibited over and over again. As a member of an elite group of Catholics at Notre Dame, she advised EXISTING AND SITTING JUDGES. An academic provided advice as if a peer. She was not a peer and under the First Amendment, religious freedom is absolute. Any judge can determine AS INDIVIDUALS in their ability to sit on a case that MIGHT lead to the death penalty. She lacks maturity within the practice of law and considers others beneath her intellect and incompetent to make their own decisions in regard to their religious affiliations in their ability to be judges. 

...She later (click here) became of a law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she was a member of Faculty for Life, an anti-abortion group at the university. One of her mentors was law professor John Garvey, now president of the Catholic University of America.

Garvey collaborated with Barrett on a 1998 law review article that argued that Catholic judges may recuse themselves from death penalty cases because of the church’s opposition to the death penalty.

The law review article drew attention during Barrett’s 2017 hearing in which she was confirmed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago, according to Politico. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., mentioned the article when questioning Barrett about Roe v. Wade....

She is not a competent practitioner of the US Constitution.