This. your comment is all that is needed to highlight her lack of being qualified. If she is going to lie under oath then she has perjured herself and has no business on any bench, much less SCOTUS.
That IMO was the bottom line and I am surprised there was no inquiry along that line.
SEN: Let me remind you Judge Jackson that you are under oath. With that, here is a yes or no question. Do you have a working definition of a woman?
That is the first of many questions that could follow either a yes or no answer, and the follow ups would expose her or leave her sputtering, or both. She was fortunate (or perhaps, allowed) to avoid major damage.