![image.png](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/pomeline/uSS8DjCw-image.png)


If this story below is correct, it suggests to me that Amy Coney Barrett might not understand the Constitution in a deep, fundamental way. 

**Republicans Urge 7th Circ. To Revive Bid For Large Groups**
> https://www.law360.com/articles/1300323/ill-republicans-urge-7th-circ-to-revive-bid-for-large-groups

Notice, in particular, how she tries to parse out slightly nuanced legal differences between First Amendment “freedom of speech” versus First Amendment “freedom of speech” plus “free exercise” of religion, which is nonsense. 

The citizen speaking and praying at the same time does not have any greater claim to personal liberty than another citizen who is merely speaking. 

This is only one example of her jurisprudence. Still, the fact that her mind is attracted to such comparisons of allegedly “competing” or “differing” rights—rather than focusing on what few powers the people of Illinois have delegated to their state, county, and municipal governments—suggests to me that she might be confused in the same way many law school professors, lawyers, and judges are confused.
 
I will repeat that for me, being a woman (or a person of a particular national or ethnic background, or a believer of certain religious dogmas) is no virtue when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court. 

I want clear-thinking and courageous Constitutionalists. Period. I don’t care about a nominee’s sex, skin color, eye color, hair color, or ice cream preference. 
To be clear, Ms. Barrett might be among the best available judges to sit on the Supreme Court. If so, it highlights my preference for selecting a nominee whose thinking has not been corrupted by a law school education and/or practicing law in our modern progressive administrative state. 

I’m not here to voice opposition to Ms. Barrett. I’m here to suggest that if she becomes the next Supreme Court judge—and if YOU are a Constitutionalist—don’t get your hopes up too high. Chances are, she’s more likely to disappoint you in key future cases than meet your expectations of sticking to solid Constitutional principles.