Well, anything I say about her will probably enrage one audience or another. So let's just stick to the facts.

Amy Coney Barrett is not exceedingly Republican, as some would argue. Yes, she is conservative, but let's explore what that really means.

When the Constitution was first being written, the more progressive Framers, such as Hamilton and Adams, wanted implied rights of the federal and state government, wanted to see a country not bound by its book. Conservatives such as Jefferson, however, were more skeptical of this approach, and preferred if people couldn't interpret the Constitution every which way; hence the Bill of Rights to keep individual privileges in check.

The balance between conservatism and liberalism is necessary to keep the country relatively unchanged, leave most of the people mostly happy. America was built on the status quo; that's why you've noticed that in terms of general policy administration and work, nothing much has changed.

Amy Coney Barrett certainly fulfills the requirements of being conservative; reading through most of her previous decisions, she keeps a very strict interpretation of the law, and allows for little leeway of implications or suggestions. Which, sometimes, can be good.

The problem is, that we're not living in the 18th century anymore. We've got cars, computers, cellphones, planes, monopolies, trusts, globalized trade. Heck, we've got the bitcoin. And for our CURRENT state of life, we have to interpret the laws as befits this society. Meaning that a strict interpretation isn't going to work well for a lot of current cases.

And yes, we've made new laws, and yes they don't reflect the Framer's thought. And yes, sometimes the facts are the facts, and there are no secondary implications. But if a case is going to make it to the Supreme Court, it's got to be complex, worthwhile, and precedent-setting. It's got to warrant a national, objective, balanced interpretation of the law.

So with 6 conservatives and 3 progressives on the stand, I doubt the interpretation will be anything but balanced. And it's not Barrett's fault; if the spots were 5 liberals and 3 conservatives, I'd say go ahead, nominate her.

So I blame party politics, for having their own agenda in this nomination. I want to stress that conservative and liberal is nowhere near the same thing as Republican and Democrat. While one is an ideology, the other is a faction bent on wreaking havoc and policy gridlock in a nation. While one can be the basis of thoughtful debate, can be the grounding for policy and law, the other tears policy apart, tears people apart. Amy Coney Barrett was in no way a thoughtful choice to unite the country and ensure a fair representation of the law.

I sincerely hope that Barrett will see reason enough to not go full conservative on the court, and create a sense of balance that we desperately need. Otherwise... well I guess we just have to see.