Based on my limited research, there are some common misunderstandings of her positions.
She did not claim that she must do what the Pope told her to do. She wrote an article that discussed catholic judges and the death penalty. Her argument was that some could not morally condone the death penalty and they must recuse themselves. She didn't believe it meant that all Catholics must recuse themselves from death penalty cases, however, since there is a complex understanding of the death penalty in Catholicism and many have no problem with it. This is a reasonable position.
She did not rule in favor of lockdowns or BLM. There were two legal questions:
a. Can the governor treat political speech differently than religious speech. The context being, church gatherings received more lenient rules than political rallies. The court ruled that he could. I don't know if it was a good decision, but the question wasn't whether the lockdown was constitutional.
b. Should the order be voided because the governor was endorsing the BLM marches while shutting down other political gatherings. The court ruled that the words did not change the order and that there was insufficient evidence to say the difference in treatment was at the influence of the governor. Again, I don't know if this is a good decision, but it wasn't in favor of BLM.
Any judge on the list is going to be much better than RBG. The question is, which can we get confirmed in time for the election? Some of Barretts positions, real or perceived, makes it a decision with a lot of risk.
Based on my limited research, there are some common misunderstandings of her positions.
She did not claim that she must do what the Pope told her to do. She wrote an article that discussed catholic judges and the death penalty. Her argument was that some could not morally condone the death penalty and they must recuse themselves. She didn't believe it meant that all Catholics must recuse themselves from death penalty cases, however, since there is a complex understanding of the death penalty in Catholicism and many have no problem with it. This is a reasonable position.
She did not rule in favor of lockdowns or BLM. There were two legal questions:
a. Can the governor treat political speech differently than religious speech. The context being, church gatherings received more lenient rules than political rallies. The court ruled that he could. I don't know if it was a good decision, but the question wasn't whether the lockdown was constitutional.
b. Should the order be voided because the governor was endorsing the BLM marches while shutting down other political gatherings. The court ruled that the words did not change the order and that there was insufficient evidence to say the difference in treatment was at the influence of the governor. Again, I don't know if this is a good decision, but it wasn't in favor of BLM.
Any judge on the list is going to be much better than RBG. The question is, which can we get confirmed in time for the election? Some of Barretts positions, real or perceived, makes it a decision with a lot of risk.