Here's what we learned from Amy Barrett's confirmation hearings. Spoiler alert: it's plain sad.

If there were any doubt that Amy Coney Barrett was simply not the right fit for the United States Supreme Court, there is now proof that she is highly unqualified for the role. Over four days of questioning during her judiciary confirmation hearings, President Donald Trump's pick for the highest court of the land failed to answer even the most basic questions about the nation's Constitution and its laws. 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over the hearings and set October 22 as the date for the panel's vote on Barrett's nomination. The full Senate is set to vote soon after, The New York Times reports.

At the outset, let us remember that Republicans flouted committee rules and pushed ahead without Democrats to schedule a vote for October 22. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the chairman, called the vote. Only one Democrat, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, was present at the time—by law, at least two members of the minority party are to be in attendance. Durbin affirmed, "I want to take official note of the fact that I am the only member of the minority that is here, and so we cannot conduct business until that second member of the minority arrives." Graham rejected the statement and proceeded anyway.

While this may not necessarily reflect Barrett's understanding of the law, there are certainly some parallels to be drawn between the two conservatives' ignorance of it. For instance, when Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar questioned the Supreme Court nominee about whether it was illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls, the latter simply refused to answer. However, the answer was simple: yes. As the Senator pointed out, under 18 USCode 594, it is a federal crime to engage in the intimidation of voters. Other highlights of the hearings included: when Barrett, a mother of seven herself, stated she was unsure about whether separating migrant children from their parents is bad (as a hilarious headline by Vanity Fair duly noted); when she forgot the "right to protest" as she failed to name the five freedoms guaranteed to American citizens by the First Amendment of the Constitution (which means she would fail a US citizenship test); and when she did not disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on the paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing.

Ultimately, her answers made two things clear. Firstly, she is ill-equipped to assume a position in the US Supreme Court, and secondly, she would be a total foil to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As Klobuchar stated, "You would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg." Barrett trained under the late Justice Antonin Scalia. She has been thus been depicted as a version of her mentor. Though she assured she would read the law in her own unique ways—she declared, "If I were confirmed, you'd be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia"—Democrats have little faith. Sadly, the grilling she faced over the past few days seemed to have had no effect on her acceptability; polls show that voters back Barrett's confirmation by a 17-point margin.