Instead, from what we can observe, it looks like the radical feminists are going ballistic over the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. From The Handmaids Tale themed marches to explosive emotional outbursts, we watch as radical feminists come unhinged as they protest the replacement for their patron saint, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Secular Religion of Radical Feminism
Among the most laughable form of fear-mongering that feminists like to throw against women such as Amy Coney Barrett is their attack on her personal faith. While they’ll gladly smear Judge Barrett’s personal devotion to her Catholic religion as a form of outdated oppression, they are themselves unaware of their own fanaticism to their secular religion of radical feminism.
Let’s be honest, radical feminists hate the fact that Amy Coney Barrett rejected the secular religion of feminism, and through this rejection, she succeeded in every aspect of her life. A loving husband, a happy family, and a successful career – Amy Coney Barrett has it all. Instead of fighting the patriarchy, Barrett embraced the idea of marriage with a large family. Because of this, Amy Coney Barrett symbolizes the worst form of betrayal to “the sisterhood” of feminism.
Feminists like to tell women that they owe all of their career successes to the progress made by feminists. This is simply untrue. Women had already achieved successes even before feminism existed (a subject for another article). But according to the feminists, Amy Coney Barrett’s refusal to toe the line of feminism means she’s a traitor to “all women.”
Feminist "Empowerment" Isn't The Path To Happiness
The irony is, Amy Coney Barrett's success in both her professional and personal life should be no surprise. Studies have shown consistently that religious, conservative women rank themselves as more satisfied with their marriage and sex life, and more likely to have (and enjoy having) children.
Instead of painting her devotion to family and religion as a weakness, or worse, dangerous, feminists should be celebrating a woman who is living proof that you can have both a family and a career. We already know that many of the women who push the "single lady lifestyle" as empowerment were ironically married women themselves.
Feminists have long gotten away with pushing a lifestyle on other women that they're unwilling to live themselves. Women like Helen Gurley Brown, the editor at Cosmo who pushed feminism, have long enjoyed the benefits of married life while promoting feminist empowerment to others.
Amy Coney Barrett rubs these women the wrong way because she is a shining example of what can be achieved when a woman embraces her role as wife, mother, and leader. She doesn't peddle one lifestyle while living another. She proves, through her own example, what the American woman can achieve if she sets her mind to it.
She also refuses to give in to the long-running narrative that women are all desperately clawing for power in a man's world. It's why she rejects the idea of judicial activism to achieve her own political ends.
Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Philosophy Is About Truth, Not Dogma
Have you ever wondered why the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation between Church and State? For a nation that was founded predominantly by religious pilgrims from the Old World, you would think that the Founders would have been more than happy to incorporate religion into the governance of America, right? But it’s precisely because they had to escape religious persecution from Europe that they understood the danger of combining religion with government.
It should be clear to us that Amy Coney Barrett recognizes and respects this fundamental truth as the Founders intended. She has proclaimed time and time again that her personal beliefs (the Church) are kept apart from her role in government (the State). It’s also the reason why she follows the originalist/textualist interpretation of the law, as opposed to the feminists’ preference for judicial activism.
Unlike the proponents of judicial activism, who believe that the salvation of society can be achieved through the legislative process, someone like Amy Coney Barrett, who is devout in her faith, understands that a person’s spiritual salvation from God isn’t attained on the seat of the Supreme Court.
Barrett subscribes to the originalist interpretation of the American Constitution.
It might also interest you to know that Judge Barrett isn’t the first Catholic whose personal faith was used against their nomination. In 1957, Justice William Brennan, who was also a devout Catholic, was forced to assure the Senate that his Catholic faith wouldn’t interfere with his role on the Supreme Court.
The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Men
Now that the discussion of the predictable feminist outrage against Barrett’s religion is settled and out of the way, let’s take a look at the important essentials that really matter in regards to Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. You’ve probably heard that Judge Barrett is supposed to be the conservative replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. This is by far the most crucial part of her nomination.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Amy Coney Barrett, like Antonin Scalia, subscribes to the originalist interpretation of the American Constitution. What this means is basically that Amy Coney Barrett will uphold the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders. Where the Constitution says you have “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” Judge Barrett will ensure that this right shall not be infringed.
And in terms of Judge Barrett’s religiosity, the First Amendment literally says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” So Amy Coney Barrett's beliefs do not matter, because due to her originalist/textualist stance in regards to the Law — she won’t pursue any course to impose her religion onto others.
Perhaps the most tragic part of the feminist outrage against Judge Barrett’s nomination is their total lack of perspective. Here’s a woman who is going to replace the late (and great) Antonin Scalia, one of the most venerable Chief Justices in our modern history. She’s would also keep the female representation on the court. But instead of a robust discussion on whether or not the President is right to replace the late Ginsburg’s judicial activism with Judge Barrett’s strict constructionism, the public debate is about Judge Barrett’s private, personal life.
It almost seems like her great mind and intelligence don’t matter to the feminists, and neither do her skills and talent regarding her work. Rather the attacks from feminists are focused on every other aspect of her life — her kids, her husband, her family, her faith. Could it be that they subconsciously know that they can’t win if they attacked the intellect of Judge Barrett? Well, from their reaction, it definitely looks like it.