The lady has seven kids. How would she find time to do the job?

Here is another good one from the satirical Babylon Bee.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats in Congress are outraged by President Trump’s “sexist”
refusal to nominate their least favorite Supreme Court hopeful, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

“Oh, we totally would have blocked her,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “I mean,
besides being a right-wing nutjob, the lady has seven kids. How would she find time to do the job? Even so, the fact that Trump turned her down shows how much of a misogynist he really is.”

In the two weeks leading up to Trump’s announcement, Senate Democrats maintained a vicious PR campaign against Barrett, warning that her nomination would be the end of women’s rights.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) sent a memo to her constituents last week:

Dear Californians,

I urge you to take to the streets in protest of the potential Supreme Court nomination of
Amy Coney Barrett. Let the Trump administration know that we will not stand for a
justice who is literally—literally—on the record saying she respects the constitution. How
dangerous. The Americans who survive this nomination will be living in a Handmaid’s
Tale in less than a year. Mark my words.

Sincerely,
Kamala

On Monday evening, Senator Harris sent an additional memo:

Dear Californians,

Shocker—Trump nominates a white male to the Supreme Court, obviously dismissing
the only female nominee because of her gender. I urge you to take to the streets in
protest of the clear discrimination demonstrated by the denial of the nomination of a
woman to the Supreme Court. How could he? We’re in a living hell.

Sincerely,
Kamala

As of Tuesday, feminist protesters in D.C. have exchanged their “#BLOCKAMY” signs for signs that read, “SEE? TRUMP HATES WOMEN.”

The dogma lives loudly within her!

Putting the lie to their identity politics! The Dems are freaking out about the possibility that Trump will appoint an extremely well-qualified woman named Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Leo Terrell is absolutely terrified about the fact that Amy Coney Barrett believes in God! I had never heard Carrie Severino before, but I was very impressed with what she had to say in this segment. She stayed composed with a beautiful smile, while Terrell grumbled and complained and played the victim.

"If we're going to have peace, we're going to make it together."

Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2017. (via C-SPAN)
In National Review, Michael Brendan Dougherty writes that he wants Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

...The fight over Barrett’s confirmation would almost certainly build trust between President Trump and social conservatives. It would energize Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

...The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again.

You may recall that this has already happened. In 2017, during confirmation hearings for a seat on the Seventh Circuit, Senator Dianne Feinstein surveyed Barrett’s public statements on her personal faith and told her that she worried that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” The bizarre idiom she created was a sign that Feinstein didn’t have an easy way to say what she wanted to say: A Catholic is fine. A believing Catholic is not.

The Feinstein incident caused Christopher L. Eisgruber, president of Princeton University, to publicly defend Barrett and her writings on how her faith relates to her duties as a judge. He then urged against what he saw as an emerging religious test. “In my view,” Eisgruber wrote, “Professor Barrett’s qualifications become stronger by virtue of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult and sensitive ethical questions: Our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics.”

Now, it would be churlish to choose Barrett only because her nomination will cause some Democrats to bleep, bloop disconcertingly before entering into auto-destruct mode. It would be good to nominate her, however, because the fight to confirm her will contain edifying political lessons. We don’t have religious tests for public office in this country, and having a republic that does not have an established religion does not require excluding sincere believers from positions of authority.

Liberals have lately internalized the idea that so long as they can justify their policy preferences as having egalitarian motives or ends, they should be able to compel religious people to conform to liberal moral norms — which just so happen to track exactly to doctrinal developments in the once dominant Mainline Protestant churches. The ACLU would compel Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The last administration wanted to compel Notre Dame to offer contraceptives as part of its compensation to employees. The baker will be made to cater at the private solemnities that offend his conscience. Evangelicals at a crisis pregnancy center will be made to advertise for abortion.

An Amy Coney Barrett nomination fight would contain an even deeper lesson, one that is salutary for both liberal secularists, who once indulged in triumphalism, and conservative believers, who have been tempted to despair: Believing Catholics and Evangelicals will continue to make their contributions to the common good of this country. You will live with us. If we’re going to have peace, we’re going to make it together.

Read more here.