Watching the Democrats compulsively attack Judge Barrett is kind of fun
On Saturday, as many expected, President Trump announced that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was his nomination to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court. On the grounds of her intellect and abilities, Barrett is a superb choice. All who have worked with her, regardless of their political leanings, admire her, both professionally and personally. Barrett’s also an excellent choice because the Democrats are incapable of refraining from attacking her on grounds that make the Democrats look awful. Trump must have known that the leftists’ compulsions would be their Achilles’ heels.
Barrett’s confirmation is a done deal because Sen. Mitch McConnell has been able to wrangle the votes he needs for Senate consent. We also know that there is no practical or constitutional reason for the Senate not to schedule a speedy hearing and an equally swift vote.
If the Democrats were sane, they would go on the record objecting to Barrett’s (to them) bizarre fealty to the Constitution. They would also complain, although they have no constitutional basis for doing so, that the nomination and hearing should have waited until after the election. They should then accept with some semblance of dignity what is a fait accompli and acknowledge that, under the rules governing our system for almost 230 years, you win some and you lose some.
But Democrats are not sane. They cannot stop themselves from the type of personal destruction tried to use against Justice Kavanaugh. Because Barrett is a model of rectitude, rape claims are out. Instead, they are alleging that she is a racist, a bad mother, and a religious fanatic. This post is a compilation of some of the Democrats’ most insane rants.
Bewilderingly, Democrats claim that Barrett is a racist because she adopted two children from Haiti. Apparently, white parents who reach out to black babies that would otherwise be abandoned or even die are just using them as props to hide the fact that, like all white people, they are born racist and will die racist.
Here’s race hustler Ibram X. Kendi:
And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist.— Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020
I’m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently “not racist” and the bots completely change what I’m saying to “White parents of kids of color are inherently racist.” These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda. Let’s not argue with them.— Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020
John Lee Brougher, who worked for Texas’s famous arch-abortionist, Wendy Davis, must have had a bad childhood, because he claims that transracial adoption is inherently abusive:
Hey @wendydavis - do you think this is appropriate? For Democrat operatives (who indicate ties to you) to target & make a political & racial issue out of a public servant’s adoptive children? #AmyConeyBarrett #SCOTUS #Tx21 #StandUpForAmerica pic.twitter.com/DWyl5KtdXD— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) September 26, 2020
Yet another leftist is pretty sure that the adoptions were illegal:
Democrats,— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 26, 2020
If you attack Amy Coney Barrett’s kids who we’re adopted from Haiti like this Democrat staffer did, we will never, and I mean never, forgive or forget it. pic.twitter.com/eQtjvYiYyp
And then there’s the anti-feminist assertion that Barrett is a bad mother because she is a working mother. This is especially laughable because Democrats have been telling American women since the 1970s that they are being the best kind of mother when they are also professionals who are emotionally fulfilled and good role models for their daughters. Still, here’s some gal named Vanessa Grigoriadis throwing second wave feminism overboard to say that working women cannot be good mothers:
It's a trifecta of ratios! WOW! pic.twitter.com/nHYTUIUGy6— Pam (@lifebythecreek) September 26, 2020
And of course, there’s the Democrats’ insistence that Barrett is a religious fanatic because she believes in the tenets of her faith. By their own standards, Leftists are not fanatics, despite believing that people can magically change sex, that race is the only determinative factor in human existence, that natural climate change is a sign that Mother Nature is angry, and that Marxism actually works.
Here’s the Daily Kos’s take, which sees Barrett bringing back chattel slavery:
Barrett is a religious extremist, a member of a small sect that takes the inherent misogyny of traditional Catholicism and adds to it the by doubling down with … more misogyny. She’s a originalist extremist, holding onto a view of Constitutional interpretation so strict, she’s ready to toss out the 14th Amendment.
Bill Maher ranted about condoms (language warning):
An alleged lawyer is thinks that Barrett’s Catholicism means she isn’t qualified to “make” laws. Theoretically, a lawyer should know that judges don’t “make” law, but the fact is Democrats want leftist judges to make the laws that the people’s representatives in Congress refuse to pass:
So called lawyer thinks SCOTUS is supposed to "make laws" pic.twitter.com/TkfcG2aJtZ— Greg (@chaoticexpo) September 27, 2020
And then there’s Christine Grimaldi, an alleged journalist, who managed to take all of the attacks against Barrett and emerge with some straight-up crazy talk:
— Greg (@chaoticexpo) September 26, 2020
The Democrats cannot change the outcome here. However, because of their compulsions, they will offend parents of adopted children (especially cross-racial adoptions), working mothers, Christians, and everyday Americans who are disgusted by the rantings of sore losers.
Conservatives as far away as Australia think that the lefts’ utter lack of self-control will be a huge boost for Trump:
If you’d like to have an accurate sense of what kind of justice Barrett will be, I recommend Noah Feldman’s tribute, which he felt compelled to write even though he does not share her judicial theories.