WALSH: Democrats Invent Absurd Reasons To Oppose Amy Coney Barrett Because They Can’t Be Honest About The Real Reason


One must feel a certain amount of sympathy for the Democrats who have been put in the unenviable position of having to invent some reason to oppose the confirmation of a universally respected, admired, well qualified, female Supreme Court Justice. Presumably they already skimmed through her high school year book and found no ammunition there. And they probably decided it would be too difficult to make outlandish sexual assault allegations stick to a woman, especially when they didn’t even stick to Brett Kavanaugh. Their options are limited.

As the Senate confirmation hearings unfold this week, Democrats and their allies in the media have tried a number of different tacks. Having realized that their “Ginsburg’s dying wish” gambit also wasn’t landing (there is no Dying Wish clause in the Constitution, as it turns out), they have rallied around the almost-as-absurd notion that Republicans would be guilty of “court packing” should they exercise their constitutional power to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Senator Dick Durbin lamented that the Republicans have “taken every vacancy and filled it,” pretending not to know that court packing is not when vacancies are filled but when they are created by adding seats. What else are Republicans supposed to do with a vacancy but fill it? Saving a few for the Democrats might be good sportsmanship but that hardly qualifies as a Constitutional obligation, nor a persuasive argument. During opening statements on Monday, Senator Cory Booker claimed that the hearing was illegitimate because, as he eloquently put it, “The American people should decide, the American people should decide, the American people should decide.” Senator Amy Klobuchar, tweeting during the hearing when she really ought to have been paying attention, posted, “This isn’t Donald Trump’s country. It is yours.  This shouldn’t be Donald Trump’s judge. It should be yours.” But what these appeals to democracy ignore is that the electorate gave control of the Senate to Republicans, and elected Donald Trump for a four-year term. Their mandate from the voters, like their Constitutional power, does not expire a month before the next election. The American people did decide. Or, to put in terms Cory Booker might be able to understand: the American people did decide, the American people did decide, the American people did decide. 

Democrats in the hearing tried to make some hay out of the fact that we are in the middle of a pandemic. Senator Mazie Hirono spent her opening statement recounting the horrors of the coronavirus and its effects on the economy. But she could never quite explain why the coronavirus should prevent a Supreme Court Justice from being confirmed, particularly when it did not prevent hundreds of Black Lives Matter rallies all across the country for three months in a row. Booker sputtered something about how it wasn’t “normal” to have confirmation hearings during a pandemic. The most obvious response to this claim is: so what? Pandemics themselves aren’t normal, therefore the things we do during them won’t be normal. But that does not mean we should cease doing things. And speaking of normal, it wasn’t normal to attempt to block a Supreme Court nominee by accusing him of serial gang rape. Democrats aspire to normalcy only under limited circumstances.

Some of the criticisms of Barrett have taken a more personal tone. Much has been made of the fact that she served as a “handmaid” in a group called People of Praise, but the protesters dressed in ridiculous red costumes outside the hearing seem to be ignorant of the fact that “handmaid” in Barrett’s case was a reference to the Bible, not a book written by Margaret Atwood in the 1980s. This sort of confusion is inevitable when your exposure to historical literature extends only to that novel, plus “Harry Potter” and “Twilight.”

Predictably, the fact that Barrett has seven children has also been the subject of attack. Author Lauren Hough mocked the judge for her “clown car vagina.” Many of her Twitter followers laugh and applauded. One of them compared giving birth to “taking a dump.” I am tempted to say that many of Barrett’s critics are jealous that she is an attractive and successful woman with a husband and children while they have only their cats and Netflix accounts to keep them company while they slowly shrivel away into nothingness to be forgotten by everyone and mourned by no one, but I will not say that because it would be uncharitable. Anyway, the interesting thing is that this narrative of Amy Coney Barrett the barefoot baby factory handmaid submissive is being advanced alongside the claim that, as Slate argues, she is a ruthless, self-promoting “careerist” who is concerned only with her own professional advancement. God forbid anyone were to utter such slander about, say, Senator Kamala Harris, who began her political career in bed with a well-connected (and still married) California politician. It would be horrifically sexist to make that sort of charge against the democratic vice presidential candidate. Barrett, for obvious political reasons, is fair game.

These are all the desperate cries of people who cannot utter their real objection, except in euphemism. Harris, joining the hearing remotely, declared that Barrett would “undo” Ginsberg’s legacy (there is no clause in the Constitution requiring that a deceased justice’s “legacy” be respected or upheld, either), and that Barrett would “roll back Americans’ rights.”

What she means here — what everyone cited above really means — is that Justice Amy Coney Barrett might make it harder for parents to legally kill their children. That is the real source of all of the impotent rage being directed at the nomination, the hearings, and Barrett personally. If she believed in a mother’s right to kill her offspring, none of the people mentioned here would be objecting to her. On the contrary, they would extol her brilliance, beauty, and bravery, and their venom would be reserved for the people doing what they themselves are doing right now. 

Democrats have no problem with this flagrant hypocrisy because they believe they are opposing Literally Hitler. The other side of the aisle, to them, represents abject evil. Racism. Bigotry. The enslavement of women. Those in the Democratic camp who do not believe this at least want everyone to believe they believe it. Meanwhile, it does not require exaggeration, hysteria, or recourse to dystopian fantasy novels, to believe — rather, to notice, to know — that they are the ones who actually do support, fund, and facilitate one of the most hideous forms of evil the world has ever seen. 

Sixty million human beings have been butchered since, and because of, the Supreme Court decision they hail as the high-water mark of the civil rights movement. Many of these humans have been killed in the very early stages of pregnancy — a fact that makes their murder no less evil — but many millions have been executed at a stage late enough to require dismemberment before the corpses can be extracted from the womb. This mass grave, this mountain of corpses, this systematic extermination of our own children, is what Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and all the rest of them are so jealously and vengefully guarding. They pretend to be fighting evil, and have given themselves the moral license to lie and cheat to that end, but they are the very genocidal fascists they pretend to oppose.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.