Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In As Supreme Court Justice

This changes everything.

The Supreme Court now has a 6-3 True Cons majority.

Note: If the Supreme Court still upholds sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, affirmative action, disparate impact and transgenderism, what does it matter?

About Hunter Wallace 9705 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

49 Comments

  1. I agree that true con judeo-christians do not deliver the social conservatism that they promise on the stump. However, you fail to examine if their underlying philosophy may be at error. Is there something inherent to Christianity as it is practiced today that lends itself to be controlled by Jews and sociopathic capitalists? In your response to opaque guy, you commit the argument ad populum fallacy. You claim that your truth claim is correct over apolloism because more whites believe that a Jewish man who lived in Palestine around two thousand years ago was the all powerful eternal creator of the universe and killed himself to atone for the sins of the creatures that he created. The idea of the god Apollo existing is equally absurd. Brahmin and his ilk should be ridiculed just like advocates for Christianity. I am against apolloism and Christianity because the evidence for the truth claims that these groups make is lacking. Also, why wouldn’t you proselytize more if you actually believed that I will be tortured forever as a result of me not accepting the proposition that a Jewish man who lived two thousand years ago was the eternal all powerful, all knowing, and all good creator of the universe? If I believed that, then I would try to save all the souls that I could. Hence, universalism and egalitarianism flow from that evangelical globalist impulse. I feel that you and KW dismiss atheists, agnostics, and skeptics i.e. secular empiricists or rationalists out of hand without carefully considering their arguments. Hitler was no Christian but he was a deist by most accounts. Himmler was a pagan. Bormann was a secular atheist and proud of it. The Catholic and Evangelical churches resisted Hitler’s antisemitic acts. What church today openly supports our plight? Name one. The only churches that give a damn are Christian Identity sects which preach British Israelism or Aryans are the real Semites. This idiocy is no different that Hebrew Israelite black sects. Christianity as a sect of Messianic Judaism is not the solution to our problem. Christianity failed to defend us against what we faced yesterday and what we faced today. Just because something is old and widely practiced does not make it effective or desirable. That is why traditionalism can be an excuse for cowardice. The unwillingness to innovate may be the death of this cause. Reaction for reaction’s sake is just as foolish as art for art’s sake.

    • You are an eloquent commenter, AW. What innovations do you see as necessary for our cause? Adopting scientism? Fetishizing our limited brains, and pretending we actually know more than we do (since the “Enlightenment,” making a religion that worships reason), has ultimately led to disasters through cults of personality: Stalin, Mao, etc. Remaking the world in our own image hasn’t worked out so well. That’s where knowing history helps, I think. Aren’t innovations going to have to be based on previous iterations of ideas?

      • Thank you Boomer X. No ideas are original in and of themselves. Novel ideas are formed by repackaging and re-contextualizing previous concepts. We must rid ourselves of the Christian poison and all religion entirely. We should become atheistic and reject belief in the supernatural. We should not worship reason or individual men, but rather, we should be in awe of the natural world and be grateful for life and seek to preserve our life and that of our kinsmen. We should operate like every other animal and play the evolutionary game. No God, or anthropomorphic transcendent entity, is required for this.

    • Christianity brought us out of darkness and into light. Problem with American Christianity today is money. If all church leaders had to work as well as pastor (nobody ever working full time for the church system), Christianity would be a lot more grounded, combative, assertive, independent, moral, and courageous. The fact that pastors have to depend on cashflow and be “seeker friendly” and politically correct to keep their “business” afloat and profitable means they are automatically compromised.

      Christ IS the Messiah, however.

      • Jannie,

        The Greek, Roman, and Egyptian empires did pretty well without Christianity.

        The burning down of the Library of Alexandria likely by Christian zealots set in motion the Dark Ages.

        No thank you. I’ll pass.

    • I do know that a big mouth who opposed divorce, money changing, child abuse with an eye for blatant hypocrisy was stitched up in a kangaroo court Jewish council and executed by a puppet governor under the threat of a riot. That’s a fresh story today if you think about Chauvin, Rittenhouse, Wilson etc etc…

    • “Is there something inherent to Christianity as it is practiced today that lends itself to be controlled by Jews and sociopathic capitalists?”

      Yes. And I would opine, except for your bigotry and myopia, when you wrote: “This idiocy is no different that Hebrew Israelite black sects. Christianity as a sect of Messianic Judaism is not the solution to our problem.” 1) to compare godless niggers to the White race of Europe, is both false and a damned insult. 2) that you claim to be OF that race, somehow seems dubious, if you hate yourself that much.
      WHY COULDN’T Europeans be the ‘Lost Ten Tribes’? Because you don’t want to submit to God and His covenant? Or because you think (God forbid) that the ‘Jews’ have ANY claim AT ALL to this? BULLSHIT.

      No, it’s because you are a Christophobe. You hate the very God that made you… and in that, you are Jew, even if you aren’t one, ethnically.
      Anathema.

      • I’ll take my chances with your imaginary friend you fool. No historian or geneticist worth his salt would believe that British people from whom I descend are Semitic or immigrants from Israel. I do not hate my race or people. In fact, the reason that I reject Messianic Judaism is because I hate what it has done to the behavior of my people which involves worshiping Jews as God’s chosen people and a Jew Jesus as the eternal all powerful creator of the universe.

    • A wicked and perverse generation seeketh a sign sir! Your knowledge of jesus christ at the noment is marginal , along with your knowledge of man. Keep studying ! Your questions are all very valid, i hope and pray you will recieve the salvation the lord offers you. It was purchased for you at the highest price, i also hope and pray our lord will open thee eyes and hearts of others , who question as you do ,. very good post young sir

      • @ aw , if i may address you again, angelic rebellion/ war in heaven/ creation of man/ fall of man/ redemption of man , search this path, young sir , anwsers await you.

    • You have the information needed to make your decision, and you made it even if it damns you.

      We who are not egalitarian, not humanist, not part of your cult of reason, no not think that all it takes to bring peace and harmony is sufficient argumentation and indoctrination.

      We do lead all the souls to salvation we can, but we do not believe that leading a horse to water can force him to drink. Not all will accept their own salvation.

      Reason is a great whore. You use her to prove whatever evidence you want and deny whatever evidence you want just like every other man does. Your position uses reason, the counterposition to your dogmas use reason, the man who thinks stop signs are secret hypnosis devices uses reason, the man who thinks the trees are conspiring against him uses reason. You think you’re special and that you’ve made her your good little housewife and she whispers how she’s loyal only to your uses and abuses. Just like she does to everyone else.

      But you think you’re the one true king of Laputa.

      Secular midwits and felons have the same mantra, admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof. And they have it for the same reason, they think it will let them avoid condemnation.

      The nature of damnnation is far more simple than you would imagine. At judgement all are given perfect lucidity, for the damned this happens:

      First, they realize beyond a doubt they are not fit for a perfect society.

      Second, they realize the foolishness and futility of trying to outwit or argue with God Almighty.

      Third, they have come to identify themselves with their vices, and are utterly unwilling to let them go.

      So they walk themselves away from paradise of their own accord, into the darkness. And in foreknowledge no place in paradise will have been prepared for them.

      #1 and #2 are facts so plain they are tautologues. Bear #3 in mind when you see evil people trying to convince people to identify as their vices. When you see in this age the only identity allowed is an identity of sin.

  2. All the tweets about how “I am literally shaking and crying right now” are freaking hilarious. These people are stupid enough to think they are actually going to have all these “rights” taken away from them now.

    • “These people… think they are actually going to have all these “rights” taken away from them now.”

      OH.. I HOPE SO. Death Penalty for ANY woman having had an abortion: Public humiliation/stocks for any whore advocating abortion. Public stoning of all sodomites, lesbians, and the removal of the Jews.

      For Christ and His Kingdom. Rule and Reign, Lord Jesus!

      • I’m with you Fr., I’m failing to see how those things you mentioned are a bad thing.

        Submitting ourselves to God? How did that become such a bad thing?

        These people think they are free, but they are not. They are still slaves to sin and can’t even see it.

        Alas for many, they will find out when it is too late.

  3. I cant even enjoy the AWFULs and Libtards rage because for every one I see or hear I am shown three MAGApede celebratory memes with this woman who weeped for George Floyd and references her adopted Haitian children while ignoring her own at every chance, in a crown declared the savior of America and conservatism.

  4. Unsurprisingly, true conservative Christians like Rod Dreher have cuck posted about how a black man swearing in a white woman to the supreme court is the premiere symbol of American greatness. Additionally, ACB is the working mom who is conservative feminist icon and a religious right catholic. The true cons love female empowerment and the image of the conservative feminist woman who can do everything that a man can including serve on the supreme court and own the libs better than the man can because she is a woman and can call out libs on their hypocritical stances. In other times, the conservative feminist would be laughed at as an oxymoron, but at this point, it makes perfect sense. David French and Rod Dreher speak for true conservatism. I don’t want to conserve hardly anything in this wretched country except for european americans. America must fall.

      • Unfortunately I would guess we have all seen it as it seems to be the most popular Boomer meme floating around the past day or so. “A black man swears in a woman with adopted black children and the DemoRats want to complain. Who are the real racists”

        What Trump and these Conservashills will never realize is that there is more “Trump is a hateful racist” commentary going around now than ever before. The only way to deal with this is to take a stand, not keep wilting

  5. The Supreme Court – is meant is to browbeat hardworking, law-abiding Whites into subjugation while the Untermensch flaunt and ignore the laws like they are doing in Philadelphia tonight. But – as usual – MAGApedes will take extreme delight in “pissing off the libs” in yet another of in a long line of Trump’s Phyrric Victories.

  6. One more Catholic, one fewer jew. And that itself is an outrage– the SC is now only 22% jewish instead of 33%. They should have confirmed Merrick Garland to have made it 44% jewish in 2016. Another shoah!

    Republicans going back 40 years put Catholics and Episcopalians on the Court. Except for Sotomayor Democrats put jews there.

    Yes, I hear the wailing. The same stupidly which had blacks in 2012 fearing that Romney would “put them back in the crop fields” and which has negro bigshot Clyburn saying that Trump’s re-election will bring back segregation and slavery.

    • “the SC is now only 22% jewish instead of 33%”:

      Not counting the Crypto-Catholics and others of mixed heritage.

  7. “””….Note: If the Supreme Court still upholds sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, affirmative action, disparate impact and transgenderism, what does it matter?….””

    Nothing. When SC convicts the swamp, then things mentioned above will go away by itself. Of course this lady may be sellout like lot of others but when you put enough people to the positions then balance shifts.

    In Hungary Poland and Russia there were lot of sellouts before things start changing.

    • . . . and think of all the chocolate colored Teslas, Edisons, Enrico Fermis, Louis Pasteurs, Beethovens, etc. in the future who will turn the U.S. into another Wakanda!

  8. “Note: If the Supreme Court still upholds sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, affirmative action, disparate impact and transgenderism, what does it matter?”

    You should give her a chance at least. Writing her off before she has even started day one isn’t helpful.

    Has she given any signals that she plans to rule in favor of neo-cons and neo-liberals. No. Yeah she has 2 adopted Black kids (with 5 biological White children) that doesn’t automatically mean she isn’t a conservative judge who can rule in our favor.

    I don’t expect her to be a savior of the White race like some expect her to be on here. I just expect her to vote to protect the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, vote against globo-homo, and vote for immigration restrictions.

    If she does that she is worth her weight in gold.

    • Well said. With the confirmation of ACB we have won a battle in what is proving to be a long war. It is but a small step, albeit not one for which we should not be grateful.

  9. Scalia did not defend the Constitution. Prediction: Amy will not defend the Constitution.

    Originally published on Ole Miss Law’s website but since deleted:

    Subject to Interpretation

    Beware of making the Constitution a ‘living document,’ says U.S. Supreme Court justice

    The nation’s eyes turned to the School of Law this spring when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the James McClure Memorial Lecture and told the standing-room-only crowd to beware of the concept of the Constitution as a “living document.”

    Scalia, 67, a conservative justice known for legal decisions based on textual interpretation, said people who want change in society should use the democratic process, not the courts, to bring it about. “What makes you think that a living Constitution is going to evolve in the direction of greater freedoms?” Scalia asked. “It could evolve in the direction of less freedom, and it has.”

    The controversial jurist drew more than 900 students, faculty, staff, and others to Fulton Chapel April 10. While many in the crowd were law school students, much of the audience, and others outside, just wanted to hear what Scalia would say. Scalia, a Reagan appointee who has served on the nation’s highest court since 1986, has angered both liberals and conservatives at times with his opinions. In 1989, he cast the deciding fifth vote in Texas v. Johnson, the decision that struck down laws against burning the American flag. At the time, conservatives were incensed. Thursday afternoon, Scalia told the UM crowd in that case and others, he was handcuffed by the Constitution.

    “I would have been delighted to throw Mr. [Gregory Lee] Johnson in jail,” Scalia said of the man tied to the flag case. “Unfortunately, as I understand the First Amendment, I couldn’t do it.” While Scalia’s literal interpretation protects those rights expressly written by the framers in 1791, he said he doesn’t recognize rights that many people today take for granted as constitutional. For instance, Scalia, a devout Catholic and father of nine, has vigorously opposed abortion on the grounds that it’s not a right guaranteed specifically by the Constitution, even though some justices interpret otherwise.

    But this kind of interpretation, Scalia says, goes far beyond their role as jurists and turns justices into policy makers, which in turn pollutes the selection process. Scalia referenced the embattled Bush nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

    “People have finally figured out … that judges aren’t interpreting law anymore, they’re making policy,” Scalia says. “So I don’t want a good lawyer, I want someone who agrees with me. “We’ll have to have a mini-constitutional convention every time they select a new justice of the Supreme Court.”

    Outside Fulton Chapel, about 15 students from the campus chapters of the National Organization for Women and the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Association staged a quiet protest. “There are several important cases in front of the court right now,” said Amy Clukey, president of UM’s NOW and a senior from Deltona, Fla. “Sodomy laws, affirmative action at the University of Michigan, and of course, abortion rights are always an issue.”

    Chris Kelly from Sherman carried a sign that read “Sodomy Laws are against basic human freedoms.” “I wanted to take the opportunity to speak up for those who are unwilling or unable to speak up for themselves,” Kelly says. Inside the auditorium, Scalia drew fire from the other side of the political spectrum when he opened the floor to questions. Jim Giles of Richland, a private citizen and outspoken proponent of conservative causes, had driven to campus for the speech. He thundered at Scalia that the University’s ban of flags on sticks in Vaught-Hemingway Stadium was just a “pretext to ban the Confederate flag. How isn’t that unconstitutional?” Scalia paused, then answered slowly, with a wave of his hand. “I have no idea.”

    The crowd laughed and applauded.

    After the speech, second-year law students Brett McColl of Toledo, Ohio, Joey Long of Henderson, N.C., and David Ford of Memphis said Scalia argued so convincingly for literal constitutional interpretation that they wished another legal scholar had been available to present a counterpoint. “I generally disagree with just about everything the man writes, but he’s definitely intelligent and knows the law,” McColl says.

    According to Scalia, knowing the law and how to apply it is his only job. “People who want to read one new law into the Constitution after another, from abortion rights to grandparents’ rights, are not looking for a flexible government,” he said. “They’re looking for rigidity.”

    This was Scalia’s third appearance in the McClure Lecture Series and the sixth time a U.S. Supreme Court justice has presented the lecture. Henry Blackmun delivered it in 1982, Sandra Day O’Connor in 1988, and Clarence Thomas in 1995.

    The series was established by James McClure Jr. of Sardis and Tupper McClure Lampton of Columbia in honor of their father, a Sardis attorney and UM Law School alumnus.

    • “. . .on the grounds that it’s not a right guaranteed specifically by the Constitution, even though some justices interpret otherwise. . .”

      What about the forgotten ninth amendment?

      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  10. P.S. I challenged the stick flag ban at Ole Miss in federal court appealing all the way to the United States Supreme Court where Scalia was the justice who decided to not hear my appeal.

  11. “The law is an ass,” as O.W. Holmes said. Barrett will do NOTHING to overturn precedent. Once something becomes law, it is established precedent, which judges are loath to interfere with. Of course, any new wrinkles on what makes a law constitutional come from leftist judges, so judges on the right only interpret law through the narrative established by the left. Just like in every other sphere of public life, the mainstream right follows and rubberstamps the left’s decisions.

  12. It’s way too early for the Tru Cons to celebrate. Remember Brennan, Souder, Kennedy, Gorsuch, Roberts. Looking at her adoptees, I would worry about Barrett in any case involving race…

  13. At the very least Judge Barrett will part of a breakwater for those lower court activist judges trying to turn the law on it’s head.

    At best, she will play a part in a court that reverses some, or perhaps more, of the vandalism committed by previous 70 years of courts.

    If this country stays together, Barrett will be an asset, and if it does not, then we have lost nothing by electing a president who nominated her.

    Judge Barrett is a win.

    If it were not so, then why would The Left be gnashing their teeth and threatening us so?

  14. No, I do not agree with transracial adoption, but, it is very clear that Amy Coney Barrett is a fine person, a very fine White Southern Woman.

    Any Southern Man would to have such a woman as a wife would be doing very well, indeed.

    Moreover, as Eva Braun was not available for the seat on the Supreme Court, nor Varina Howell Davis, I think she’ll do:)

    • Sorry Ivan, but I respectfully disagree.

      A fine woman would not adopt godless heathens. A fine woman would actually take the name of her husband.

      A fine woman would not spend so much time with her career at the expense of her children.

      A fine woman would not believe in the heresies that the Catholic church teaches such as their teaching on salvation (Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough according to them).

      I could go on and on, but you get the point.

      It’s sad that our standards are so low these days that we celebrate someone like Amy Barrett because she isn’t a raving lunatic heathen like RBG was.

  15. Rumor is she was sworn in by a Black judge. If that is true and considering the fact that she adopted Black children we are already in post-America. What’s left to save? How is this a “conservative” victory if we really consider conservatism to be a form of conservation?

Comments are closed.