On Saturday evening, U.S. President Trump named Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

 

Although her nomination had been widely predicted, and was greeted enthusiastically by the President’s supporters and by the Pro Life movement, it also sparked another outpouring of rage, abuse and threats from Democrats. One tweeter posted : “Nice children you’ve got. Shame if something happened to them.”

Some of the attacks descended, as you might expect, into the gutter. A particular target was the children Coney Barrett  and her husband had adopted from Haiti, with one Washington Democrat staffer, Dana Houle, questioning the legality of the adoption. Even more absurdly, given the politics and gender of another assailant, Coney was also attacked for being a working mother, and at the same time slammed for supposedly setting women back.

Not surprisingly, the reaction to this was pretty strong. Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders exposed the hypocrisy of the Democrats on focusing on Coney Barrett’s family.

 

Another former Administration assistant, Sebastian Gorka, did not mince his words regarding Houle who he described as a “scumbag.”

The ironic thing about the people attacking Coney Barrett – including the likes of Houle and some rapper who claimed that the judge was engaged in an act of violent colonization by adopting black Haitian children – is that they regard themselves as our moral superiors.

I recall reading some of Lenin’s uncensored writings after the Soviet archives were opened and they were published. They were full of hatred and bile and resentment not just at his enemies, who included almost everyone other than some putative anointed class of which he knew sweet Fanny Adams, but also of his “friends” like Stalin and Trotsky and others who he belittled in his letters and notes. Solzhenitsyn’s fictional portrayal of the nasty little man in Lenin in Zurich was far closer to the real Lenin than the avuncular caricature promoted by the Soviet Communist Party, and even still beloved of modern leftists. Including some of Coney Barrett’s tormentors.

That aside, Trump’s nomination will add further impetus to a campaign that has the Democrats reeling. More importantly, regardless of the election result, Trump will have set a long term mark on American society with the creation for the first time in living memory of a solid conservative anti abortion majority on the Supreme Court.

The implications of that will not become clear until the Court is faced with another legislative proposal if challenged such as the one from Louisiana earlier in the year. Such a move is more likely to come from a Republican state rather than Congress unless, and until, the party breakdown in the House alters radically.

Given the increasingly bitter disputes over all manner of issues, including any number of possible legal challenges that might follow the election itself, the Court is certain to be central to what happens over the next decade.

Liberals and leftists are fond of referring to the Roe v Wade judgement as if it was set in stone. It is not. It is based on one interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Their late hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in large part eulogised for her commitment to the Constitution as a “living document.” In other words it can be interpreted differently as American society changes.

That was most evident when the Court ruled against Constitutional arguments in support of the denial of equal rights as citizens to black people. It may one day do so in defence of a similar barbaric treatment of unborn children, of all races