You start attacking her on her faith

Nobody is attacking her on her faith. She is being attacked for stating that she would follow her faith instead of the Constitution. If you don't understand the difference between those two things, I can't help you.

Here's the article Barrett authored for the Marquette Law Review? She argues that judges should obey the Catholic Church instead of the Constitution. No conservative should be ok with this.

In her opinion article, she quotes Justice Brennan's words from his 1957 confirmation hearing as follows (these are Brennan's words):

"Senator, [I took my] oath just as unreservedly as I know you did... And... there isn't any obligation of our faith superior to that. [In my service on the Court] what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs."

Barrett then immediately asserts (in the very next line of text):

"We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take."

The conclusion of Barrett's article sums up her opinion as follows:

"Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church's standard."

This is NOT conservative thinking, this is religious zealotry. This woman should not even be discussed in the same sentence as the Supreme Court.