Feminazis led attack on Judge Barrett

I rarely do two consecutive columns on the same subject, but there was something uniquely unAmerican about the nature of the attacks against (now) Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett at Senate hearing. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP, Hannah McKay/Pool/Getty Images)

Yesterday I commented on a vile racial attack from a so-called Black intellectual. Today, it’s the far Left and especially the stripe of hypocritical feminists that Rush Limbaugh humorously characterized as “feminazis.” The far Left — and I don’t truly know how “far” Left they are, as they keep floating farther Left, like an iceberg sliding into the shipping lanes — has no sense of humor, no tolerance for mockery against them. They embrace snark only when it is directed at others, and especially on Twitter, which is a valet of the Left.

At its foundation, the Left’s hysteria about Barrett had nothing to do with her credentials, which were superb. What raised hackles was her “originalist” philosophy, someone who follows the Constitution as written.

That philosophy,  versus that of a “living” Constitution that always changes, is open to debate. And it is debated in the Supreme Court.

The Left’s hysteria, simply stated, revolved around two issues — abortion and health care.

The Left fears she will vote to restrict what they see as a woman’s fundamental right — unrestricted access to abortion — and also to overturn or wreck the Affordable Care Act. Working from their assumption of how Barrett will vote — history gives us many examples of conservative judges turning left, as Chief Justice John Roberts did to enable the ACA — led them to oppose her. 

That is understandable, and acceptable.

Here’s what’s not acceptable: From the first time Barrett spoke, the Social Media Left blazed with comments that excoriated her speech, her eyes, even her motherhood. And the worst of it came from women.

I am paraphrasing here from memory.

“That voice! I can’t stand it. It’s like fingernails on a blackboard.”

“What’s wrong with her eyes? She seems like the bride of Frankenstein!”

“She’s not a woman, she’s a baby factory.”

“And that cult she’s in teaches to obey men.”

Some were even worse, but let’s start with the cult. Barrett is a Catholic, but also a member of People of Praise, a small faith group that focuses on community, and which is led mostly by men.That “led by men” thing ignited the feminazis.

Another “cult” led by men, is, well, the Catholic church, with its male pope and priests. Orthodox Jews are led by men and separate men and women during worship, as do Muslims. Matter of fact, almost any religion can be called a cult.

Next slur, a “baby factory.” 

What I understand about feminism is that it puts the woman in charge of her own decisions. Right? But if her choice is to be a mother, that’s no good? Barrett actually decided to have it all — children and a career. Shouldn’t feminists be cheering, rather than jeering, her? 

I imagine the common scolds who hissed about Barrett’s maternity choices are shrivelled bats who live with cats as stand-ins for the children they don’t have.

It’s their choice. Where do they come off criticizing Barrett for hers?

Her eyes and her voice I lump together as things men can’t mention when discussing women. Can’t say their voices are “shrill” or “high-pitched,” which they are when compared to most men, but we can’t use male voices as the standard.

I am amazed by the utter lack of self-awareness the feminazis displayed when they took this line of attack. It would be like a Jew attacking a landsman  as a kike.

The “tolerant” Left went into overdrive with infamies that hypocritically attacked Barrett with weapons that were misogynistic at best, and unAmerican at worst. Am I shaming them? I am trying to.

Conservatives had philosophical differences with liberals Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sottomayor, but they were confirmed 63-37, and 68-31, respectively, with Republican votes.

And without a Senate hearing that had elements of the Inquisition. 

34 thoughts on “Feminazis led attack on Judge Barrett”

  1. HAPPY TUESDAY !!!
    Stu,
    You’re working overtime. Take a break. Watch a rally.
    I find this 21st century quite disturbing. We are on a steep slope, heading to hell.
    I was just talking with number three brother. He sent me a text from John Wesley. His wisdom and words were of sound advice then and today, they are still good advice. I told my brother, that ever since the ’60s, we replaced God with drugs. Most unusual coming from me ! People just don’t get it ! There is no attempt to mend fences or let the wounds heal.
    I really am hoping that after this election, we all try to listen and learn and forgive and rebuild.
    stay well,
    Tony

  2. ACA works for me. My city insurance expired, so I got Obamacare. I have same plan as I did before, with dental for $195/mo. I’m worried, that if reelected, Trump will gut Social Security & Medicare to pay for his trillion dollar tax cut for thec2%.

    1. Glad you like ACA. That really has nothing to do with Barrett. IF it turns out to be unconstitutional, it should be knocked down. Lots of people liked segregation, but it was unconstitutional.

  3. 100% correct.The old school liberals are vanishing as quick as the middle class.These woman you are talking about are rich,self righteous,arrogant ,lack common sense and are leaning dangerously close to Marxism and anarchy.Perfect example Nancy Pelosi.

  4. Stu,
    I consider myself a moderate Democrat. I am not a lefty or a screening liberal.
    I completely disagree with your statement that this new Judge Barrett has “ superb” credentials. She had been a judge for three years; 3 years! That does not qualify her for an appointment to the hugest court of the land. She has never even tried a case in front of the court. These are not superb credentials Stu

    1. Do you have a problem with liberal Elena Kagan? Do you know she had ZERO experience on the bench? Had no trial experience. Not one day. So you must believe she was not qualified. Correct?

        1. I did not know about Kagan’s qualifications. I would feel the same way so tell your friend to touché Himself.. Unlike what the Republicans just did to the court, I am not a hypocrite.

          1. You knew about Barrett’s qualifications, but you didn’t know about Kagan’s? Spare me the bullroar.

  5. Excellent follow up. I am always amazed when advocates for women fail to acknowledge women from the other political party. Condeleeza Rice a perfect example.

  6. If abortion is a hot political topic, maybe pro-choice women should have made their choice before they became “infected.”
    Obamacare, or any health plan, helps those who need help. What is wrong when we help any fellow human who needs our
    help. Medical expenses just bury some people. We who can pay for our own medical care through insurance that is barely affordable are still blessed.

  7. Philadelphia, PA

    Dear Stu,

    You have well observed the focused social and political intolerance of the ideological left in public action. The styles of self-righteous intolerance born in the universities now attempt conquest of the public sphere of discussion and debate generally. It is, indeed, unAmerican.

    The judgment and caricature of Justice Barrett seems entirely based on suppositions concerning what she may later do on the bench. The assumption seems to be that any judge (and more conservative judges in particular) could only aim to carry out some political program or project. Sub-text: devoting to the constitution and the prevailing traditions of judicial decisions is (can only be!) a mere disguise for politics.

    Note again that our historical tendency to puritanical intolerance has chiefly manifested on the left at present. But isn’t it also a kind of lust for power?

    H.G. Callaway

  8. Seems we’re all in a new and disturbing era where, when you disagree with an idea, you attack the character of the person holding it. I’ve always thought this was an indication of a weak hand, or poor grasp of an issue. I am so tired of so-called conservatives calling me a ‘libtard’ when I express alarm at the President’s more intemperate outbursts or exaggerations, and leftists calling me a racist because I don’t recognize my ‘privilege’. This is all nonsense. And fully on display during the SCOTUS confirmation process.

    Ms. Coney Barrett seems quite qualified and very bright. I remain somewhat skeptical about the utility of the originalist approach, which seems well-suited to some issues and far less so for others where the Founders’ world-view cannot easily encompass contemporary concerns. Much good thinking has been expounded on both sides of the question, and it is one worth debating. Character assassination isn’t debate.

    One thing that seems clear from the Founders’ actions was their intent to make it fairly difficult, but not impossible, to institute change to the American system of government. All those ‘checks and balances’. Which both parties seem to want to overturn at one time or another when they can’t achieve popular support for what they propose. Which seems like exactly what the Founders wanted to prevent, or at least encumber.

    The Constitution is amendable. While this is far from an easy process, but it is the remedy available to those who believe it is flawed or inadequate in its current form.

    1. David, Excelent comment, I wish more people responded so eloquently and accurately.

      I also wish our political leaders put enough effort into amending our constitution to reflect contemporary life as opposed to relying on courts to settle legislative overreach.

      Stu, thank you for citing accurately the shameful and political attacks on Barrett, while clearly pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans actions in 2016 and 2020 in relation to SCOTUS.

  9. You forgot how she will overturn any/all LGBT rights.

    Also: “femnazi’? You’re better than this Stu. Is a woman asking for equal rights the equivalent of invading Poland? Is a woman asking for equal pay the equivalent of the Holocaust? Sigh.

    1. I do not think anyone forgot to cite your concerns in future cases that Barrett, rightfully refused to comment on.

    2. Feminazi is 1) Funny. 2) Fitting for the people I targeted.
      As to how she will strip LGBTQetc rights, I did not forget. The Dems did. They focused on abortion and ACA

      1. One would think, based on the amount of coverage being given them, that the LGBTQ ‘community’ is overrunning the nation. Help! The lesbians and the gays, the trannies and the bis, and the Qs (what the hell is a Q?) are taking over! Enough! Who cares what one does with one’s sex organs?

  10. I agree with comments about the Far Left losing its collective sense of humor. Conservatives are far funnier, and a lot braver when it comes to challenging the prevailing wisdom, more accurately described as groupthink. Check out Podcaster Andrew Klavan, who delights in describing Amy Coney Barrett as “America’s First Smoking Hot Supreme Court Justice.”

  11. A Christian friend sent me this. I have to admit it spooked me as a Jew.
    This guy Kim Clement (he died in 2016 after Trump won), had foretold Trump since 2007, even by name. He said Trump will serve 2 terms, appoint 5 SC justices, be of “hot blood”…but he mentions here a woman with unusual eyes who will be chosen.

    https://youtu.be/Ye4hroPKNMc

  12. Stu, as a professional woman who put a career first and adopted dogs and cats instead of having children, I can say that I am incredibly impressed by Judge Barrett. She has it all…including common sense and humility. The women to which you refer are just jealous, and isn’t jealousy the purest form of compliment?

    And thank you, Tony, for your wise reply. I have never bitten my tongue so much and prayed so hard!

  13. Facebook, Twitter and the other forms of social media have educated more people than our school systems. They don’t have to pick up a book. Just believe everything they read and see!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *