https://nypost.com/2023/01/26/biden-judicial-nominee-stumped-by-questions-about-the-constitution/
Yes, this was pretty bad. To recap, she couldn't explain Articles II and V of the Constitution, and also didn't know what "purposivism" is.
Article II lays out the powers of the presidency. Article V describes the constitutional amendment process. "Purposivism" is the idea that courts should interpret statutes in accordance with - you guessed it! - the purpose the legislature was trying to achieve in enacting them. It's one of the two most influential schools of statutory interpretation (the other is textualism).
These are very basic things that it's reasonable to expect any federal judge to know. They're not obscure legal technicalities.
And, yes, the NY Post reporter describes some of this inaccurately in the linked article (e.g. - he incorrectly describes "purposivism") - even as he chastises the nominee for her own ignorance. That just goes to show that the Post should hire better reporters to cover legal issues, and that this writer shouldn't be a judge either!
Worth noting that Sen. Kennedy once forced Trump to withdraw a judicial nominee after the latter was stumped by similarly basic questions. The same thing should happen here. I'm sure Biden can find plenty of potential nominees who know these basics.