Even before the official announcement at the White House on Saturday afternoon that Amy Coney Barrett would be tabbed as President Trump’s selection to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court we knew the hits on the judge would be coming. What was surprising, however, was the level of insipid subjects the Democrats, leftists, and media figures would dredge to come up with their outrage at her selection.
They also seemed intent on criticizing her over issues they normally support, and in so doing are undermining a few of Joe Biden’s positions during the campaign. But first they had to go low. Beginning on Friday night some Democrat operatives began forwarding the narrative that there was something unacceptable, and possibly racist, behind the fact that Coney Barrett had adopted two children from Haiti. What they thought had been a sharp observation was exposed as rather vile, and the initial senders locked down accounts, but Leftists failed to see the disgust from the general public.
Soon there were many coming forward to suggest ACB was actually using her transracial adoptions as a career move and a shield against charges of racism. It was as if the left was just as outraged that the preferred knee-jerk narrative of accusing racism was stolen from them, so THAT became the focus of their accusations. The very idea that ACB had gone through the efforts of adopting two children just in case someday she might become a SCOTUS nominee exposes the vacuous thinking the Democrats and the left have these days.
Normally the concept of whites being open and accepting of minorities is the goal, but now when presented with an active example of their demands it becomes problematic. The only shock is that they did not go to the next step and accuse Barrett of stealing content from another race. The other issue is that the disgusting act of targeting her children reflects bad on a Biden campaign that has run ads using his own kids. In one new spot highlighting the need to preserve Obamacare they invoke his late son, who died from cancer. Tellingly Biden is not accused of using the death of Beau Biden as ‘’a shield.’’
Another attack introduced towards Barrett is her faith, specifically her Catholicism. This was an issue brought against her three years ago when she went through confirmation to be appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it presents another challenge for Biden. If ACB’s faith is brought up then it will be reflected back directly onto Biden, himself a Catholic and something he has had to massage during the campaign.
Biden’s faith is something the campaign wants to leverage, but at the same time he needs to resort to pretzel faith, because the Democratic issues of abortion, and forcing nuns to pay for birth control fly against the tenets of his avowed faith. If ACB becomes targeted over her Catholicism then Biden will need to answer for it as well, and if he is permitted to contort to say the political agenda is more important than adhering to the principles of the church then he loses that issue with devout voters.
One other criticism leveled towards the judge made no sense when framed that it came from the left. A number of individuals came forward to attack the presentation of Barrett as a working District judge AND being able to be a mother to seven children, a remarkable turn from the years of leftist feminism telling us that women can have, and do it all. Now these voices were declaring it impossible for her to manage both. Her having a supportive husband is completely removed from the equation, all the while Jill Biden has become something of a centerpiece of the Biden campaign, even serving as his replacement at times as he has been frequently placed under a ‘’lid.’’
This new stance by the left is made more humorous with the desperate attempt many have made over the weekend to stipulate that the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was ushering in the age of ‘’The Handmaid’s Tale.’’ The amusement is that the very people leveling the charge were in truth the ones resorting to ‘’Handmaid’s’’-level repressive tactics.
This was a woman being nominated, after all, and the very people who were aghast at this concept were suggesting it is unseemingly and less than motherly for her to be both a professional and a mother. Here they were diminishing her import as a female, hectoring her over her decisions as a parent while implying she should be home with the kids, all while claiming a new standard was being ushered in that would rob women of their agency.
Not all shocking that the emotional reactions from the left would be absent of pragmatic thought. It is rather laugh-inducing to watch, at the same time.
