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.

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.