Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace the Cadaverous RBG, as expected. The ‘Splodey-Head Left, in their usual display of class, civility, and decency, between flinging poo right away, surprising no one. Stupidly, even some who claim to be on the Right are playing along too, “asking questions” about her adoption of two Haitian kids—something the vile Left is also poking their own shit-smeared snouts into, albeit from a slightly different direction.
According to Rightie concern trolls, most especially those on the DR, Barrett’s adoption of those two children can only mean she’s a race-traitor and a fraud, a virtue-signalling squish who knuckled under to the Left’s vituperation via the cowardly expedient of glomming onto a couple of ferrin’ pickaninnies purely as a talisman against the Left’s RACIST!!!™ voodoo. That there might be no more to it than an act of generosity and compassion by a decent woman, who was deeply touched by the kids’ plight and wanted to help, is not even remotely possible and therefore not worthy of consideration.
The Insane Left, of course and as usual, know in their bones that it’s Ol’ Blue-Eyed Beezerbub up to his/her old tricks again, just a-colonizin’ and enslavin’ as is his eternal wont. The well-worn Catholic canard, out of favor since JFK, is even being dusted off and polished for use against her.
Meh, let ’em all scream away, as loud and as long as they feel they must. I like her, myself. Sure, she could easily turn out to be another letdown like the Dread Turncoat Roberts has. But we can only hope she won’t, and personally I don’t really expect her to. Among other encouraging things she’s said, this seems pretty typical:
Last year at an event with Hillsdale College, Barrett’s student Stephanie Maloney asked the judge “What role, if any, should faith of a nominee have in the confirmation process?”
Barrett said, “None.”
“I mean, we have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country. And in fact, the religious test clause in the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to impose a religious test on anyone who holds public office,” the judge explained.
“So whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added.
“I do have one thing that I want to add to that, though. I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.
“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”
“So I think the public should be absolutely concerned about whether a nominee for judicial office will be willing and able to set aside personal preferences, be they moral, be they political, whatever convictions they are,” Barrett explained. “The public should be concerned about whether a nominee can set those aside in favor of following the law.”
“But that’s not a challenge just for religious people. I mean, that’s a challenge for everyone. And so I think it’s a dangerous road to go down to say that only religious people would not be able to separate out moral convictions from their duty,” she said.
Barrett won’t be perfect, certainly. No matter how good she might be, she’s still bound to come down on the wrong side of the argument once in a while. But as long as the Left continues to hate her with the intensity of a thousand suns, hey, that’ll be plenty good enough for me.
Update! Almost left out an imporant aspect: if confirmed and seated, ACB will break the traditional stranglehold on the Court held by the Yale-Harvard cartel. That can’t be anything but a good thing.
Updated update! Buck Sexton nails it just as clean and tight as I’ve ever seen it done.
So the Democrat attacks on ACB for adopting children from Haiti have already begun-
Take note, America. Watch closely.
The Left is going to show you that it’s a morally bankrupt, vicious creed
The vengeful will of an angry mob, with the selfish mind of a spoiled child
— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) September 26, 2020
Nothing whatsoever to add to that. It says it all.