The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Amy Coney Barrett: Why Is No-One Asking About Her Haitian Adopted Children?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court has provoked huge controversy. She’s a Christian who might replace an aggressive Jewish legislating Leftist, meaning she’ll probably tip the court in a more conservative direction. But the fact that she has two adopted black immigrant children (in addition to five of her own) has, needless to say, not surfaced in the hearings−although Ibram X. Kendi’s response to it, below, did. It’s no the kind of thing you’re allowed to ask about. Which is too bad. What kind of white people adopt black children?

Of course, in doing so, Barrett has unintentionally “gaslighted” liberals and minority activists. Conservatives are supposed to be evil racists, yet this committed Roman Catholic has adopted two black children from Haiti. This has led to cognitive dissonance—when where the way the world is contradicts the way your ideology tells you it should be.

People deal with the confusion this causes either by accepting that their ideology is empirically wrong or by coming up with some desperate way of justifying their worldview. They will express this with great emotion, because they know, deep down, that it’s wrong and they want to dissuade people from criticising it.

So it turns out that Barrett has adopted two black children because she’s a racist. According to “anti-racism” activist and academic Ibram X. Kendi;

Some White colonizers “adopted” Black children. They “civilized” these “savage” children in the “superior” ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity

[Boston University professor is urged to resign for calling Amy Coney Barrett a ‘white colonizer’ who is using her two adopted Haitian children as ‘props,’ By Ariel Zilber et al., Mail Online, September 28, 2020].

Thus “cognitive consonance” has been achieved! The nasty racist conservative who adopted black children did so as an act of “colonialism”–because she is a “racist” and a Bad Person.

Senator John N. Kennedy, R. LA, condemned Kendi, although he referred to him as “some butthead professor” rather than “some black professor”

Perhaps someone should dispassionately look at the kind of people who in engage in adoption and specifically in inter-racial adoption.

Fortunately, this has been done by Edward Dutton, of the Ulster Institute for Social Research in London, and Guy Madison, a psychologist from Umeå University in Sweden [Why do middle-class couples of European descent adopt children from Africa and Asia?, Personality and Individual Differences, 2018].

According to the researchers, the key issue is differences in so-called “Life History Strategy” (LHS). We are all on spectrum from a fast LHS to a slow LHS.

Those with a fast LHS are adapted to an ecology which is easy but unstable, full of unpredictable dangers such as wild animals and outbreaks of disease which means you could be wiped out any minute. Thus, they “live fast, die young” and invest most of their energy in sex, having as much sex with as many people as possible, hoping that some of their numerous offspring will survive. They are aggressive, to respond to sudden dangers, and create weak social bonds, as anyone could be suddenly killed.

In contrast, Slow LH strategists are evolved to an ecology which is harsh but predictable. This starts to develop once the ecology reaches the carrying capacity for the species, meaning that members start to compete with each other. They are more likely to succeed in this competition if they adapt to the predictability of the environment: they will meet people again; they can plan for the future. Also, as the environment is harsh, if they simply have lots of children, and don’t look after them, they could all be wiped out. So they start to invest less energy in copulation and more energy in nurture.

In such a harsh world, Slow LH strategists are also more likely to survive as part of a group. Life also slows down so you can learn about the more complex environment, meaning later puberty, for example. So a slow LHS is associated with a desire to nurture in general and thus low negative ethnocentrism, high altruism, empathy, Conscientiousness (impulse control and following group rules) and intelligence, because this allows you to plan for the future, be future-oriented and make correct predictions.

According to researchers Dutton and Madison, who draw upon various large-scale surveys, socioeconomic status is associated with a slow LHS. People with high socioeconomic status tend to have high IQ and they also tend to be high in Conscientiousness and, to a lesser extent, Altruism and Empathy (though there are always individual exceptions).

As such, you would expect middle class people who were infertile to be more likely to adopt: they report 23% of US high school graduates would potentially adopt compared to 48% of “college graduates or higher.” The latter are also less likely to believe that it would be “harder to love an adopted child.”

Among Whites who adopt Blacks, 53% were at least university graduates.

Then there is the issue of race. The researchers report that Blacks—on numerous measures such as personality traits, sexual promiscuity, negative ethnocentrism and puberty age—are faster LH strategists than Whites. This means they should be less pro-nurturing and more ethnocentric.

Consistent with this, Dutton and Madison find that 50% of White women would adopt if they were infertile, but this was so for only 35% of Black women.

Blacks were more likely to feel that you would be less able to love an adopted child, and more likely to adopt relatives than were Whites. Also, 95% of Black adopters had adopted a child of their own race compared to 81% of White adopters.

Dutton and Madison note that Asians have a slower LHS than Whites, but are less likely to adopt. However, they suggest that this may be because, as the ecology becomes extremely harsh, ever narrower niches must be found to survive, meaning that the components of a slow LHS start to break-up.

Hence, Asians are slower overall but faster on certain traits–their generalized nurture being so low than they tend not to even own pets. But they are extremely nurturing to their own children, more so than Whites.

Dutton and Madison also argue that women typically follow a slower LHS than men. As their involvement with the child is inescapable, they invest more energy than do men in nurture than in sex.

Thus they are far more in favour of adoption, with only 17% of them saying it is harder to love an adopted child compared to 28% of men.

So, the big issue in understanding why it is that educated, white women—such as Judge Barrett—who pursue inter-racial adoption is slow LHS: in other words, they are kind, nurturing, non-racist people.

Although Dutton and Madison did not look at this, it has also been found that religiosity is associated with a slow LHS [The Measurement of Human Life History Strategy, By A.J. Figueredo et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2013].

So this might also predict, in extreme cases, generalized altruism and thus inter-racial adoption.

That said, and to be fair to Kendi, Dutton and Madison do look at potential mercenary aspects to transracial adoption.

They note that home adoptees in Western countries are likely to be the children of drug-addicts who will be damaged and will inherit criminal traits, such as low IQ and poor impulse control. So a foreign adoption, of children who presumably lack these traits, may actually lead to an easier life for the adoptive parents.

The researchers also observe that parents may feel a sense of disgust towards the White child of low status in a way that they will not towards a foreign child of a different race, who is not being part of their group.

Also it is clearly true, they note, that adopting a Black child is a means of virtue-signalling and we might expect White people, being more intelligent, to better understand the benefits of doing this.

But overall, the study seems to imply that transracial adoption is higher among middle class White people not because these people are “racist”—but because they are simply extremely high in generalized altruism and they are strongly evolved to nurture and be kind.

Which is great.

But there’s another issue. Amy Coney Barrett’s interracial adoptions do suggest that she may have no awareness of race realism–not impossible in her intellectual milieu. The plain fact is that interracial adoptions regularly don’t work out well, for example in the case of Colin Kaepernick and born-again Never Trumper David Frum’s family. [The Prodigal Frum, The Nation, July 11, 2012] How could she not be aware of this before inflicting it on her family?

Importantly, the possibility that the Disparate Impact of objective employment tests may actually be the result of systematic IQ differences has never been frankly presented to a U.S court.

How will Amy Coney Barrett respond when it is?

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. R.C. says:

    It’s called social virtue signalling. Beyond that? This article directly implies that ‘one size fits all’ and is therein weak.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  2. Rational says:


    I think Amy Barrett adopted black kids because she is a Christian, and believes that a black man (pictured below) died on the cross, and he was a son of God, so why not adopt some black kids? Never mind the black boy, looking at the girls pretty white skin, will be filled with uncontrollable lust and desire and may attack the girls. There are many stories of black adopted kids murdering their white adopting families.

    Here is a picture of the mythical black man called Jesus:

    But luckily, he never existed:

    Christianity is the most liberal cult in the world, a middle eastern/African cult, a curse upon the white race, and makes sane women like Amy insane.

    “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.” – VOLTAIRE.

    • Replies: @Peter Gent
    , @Hibernian
  3. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:

    If you adopt a male negro and force your natural white kids to live with him, you’re committing child abuse to your own kids. The dangers of violence and rape are very real, the west African male is a loaded gun or a leaking stick of dynamite and could go off at any time. Amy Coney Barrett was born a child of privilege with her father being a high paid lawyer for Shell Oil. She might have degrees coming out of her ears but high academic achievement doesn’t equate to common sense nor wisdom. Her desiring to adopt two black children probably has more to do with her trying to emulate TV show Diff’rent Strokes than any practical or common sense reason. The show which aired from 1977 to 1985 and featured actor Conrad Bain as a rich widower who adopted two negro boys, already having a white natural daughter. When she was a kid this show was one of the top rated shows and probably influenced her. Growing up in a rich household, she was probably isolated from the depravities of negro males and grew up with an unrealistic image of them, thinking that negro maladies were caused by a lack of religion and bad upbringing. I generally would rather have a conservative to replace Ginsburg, but at least with her you knew what you were getting, with this Barrett, I don’t know. In my opinion, she’s been encased in a plastic bubble all her life and has little or no common sense.

    • Agree: WSG, Trinity
    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Trinity
    , @Hibernian
  4. the Disparate Impact of objective employment tests

    When will someone bring up the disparate impact of gun control laws?

  5. Talha says:

    The plain fact is that interracial adoptions regularly don’t work out well, for example in the case of Colin Kaepernick and born-again Never Trumper David Frum’s family. [The Prodigal Frum, The Nation, July 11, 2012] How could she not be aware of this before inflicting it on her family?

    Are we supposed to take that statement of fact followed by a paucity of evidence seriously? I’m sure you can do better. Links to reliable statistics showing that interracial adoptions end up in a significant number of unstable or detrimental family situation would go a long way in establishing what “the plain fact is”.

    I look forward to some more relevant data than celebrity cases (as if anything Angelina Jolie is involved with is normal by any metric).


  6. Why don’t they ask about the five children that she had naturally, one of which has Down’s Syndrome, IIRC? How can a woman with five children care for them adequately and serve as a justice on the federal bench at any level? Why would a woman with five unadopted children adopt two more, diverting resources from the five unadopted children?

    Steve Sailer, to his credit, has asked these questions, but unfortunately, he’s not a U.S. senator. The short answer is that Amy Coney Barrett has a warped sense of priorities and her decisions as a justice will prove to be wildly unpredictable. Her rejection by the Senate might not be a loss for the dissident right.

    • Agree: Cauchemar du Singe
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  7. dearieme says:

    Kendi Kondems Koneybarrett.

  8. Laura Ingraham has also adopted a non-White child (at least, one; perhaps, more), but, in her case, if I recall correctly, the child is not Black, but a typical mixed-race Latino.
    Despite that, she is also, of course, called a ‘racist’.

    This is not the 1st time I’ve read about adopting children from other races as ‘racist’, according to the “Woke”! In fact, some “Woke” ones are even calling inter-racial marriage as a form of ‘colonialism’ (or what-not) now! (True, it’s very marginal in the ranks of the “Woke”, thus far.)

    Dude, for real… 1970s Liberal (and eugenicist!) Ruth Bader Ginsburg scares me way less than fundies like Amy Coney Barrett.

  9. When I was a Catholic schoolboy there was a charity we had to contribute to, whose aim was to “ransom pagan babies” living in uncivilized places like Africa and Asia. I would think this is what Barrett remembers, the constant attempt to drag all people everywhere into her strict, authoritarian faith. Misery, after all, loves company.

  10. @Diversity Heretic

    This woman has 5 children. She adopts 2 more. All are aged from 8 to 19 years. In the meantime, she has a busy legal career and is a higher court judge. Obviously, her part in bringing up these children will be decidedly limited, Given her wealthy background, most of the burden of rearing them will fall on hired nannies, au pairs, governesses and the like.
    This woman is no paragon of Catholic motherhood. Quite the contrary. She doesn’t believe in it. She believes in ” Having it all”, as the late Helen Gurley Brown put it. She wanted a high-flying career and she wanted lots of kids, adopted as well as natural. In actuality, this meant the career took precedence and the children were dumped on hired help.
    You are right: this woman has a warped sense of priorities. She is not a true Christian and her decisions at the bench, if appointed, are likely to be unpredictable to say the least. Her rejection would be no loss.

    • Replies: @Exalted Cyclops
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
  11. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    The adoption of those Haitians is a red flag, showing her to be clueless to reality and living in a bubble world. Watch her morph into something completely different from the expected conservative she’s supposed to be. She’ll end up being bad for the mass of working white people as she has no real feel for them.

  12. Ted Cruz asked her and received an answer.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  13. c matt says:

    Why is no one asking her? Because she may accidentally say the truth “I had to save them from Hillary.”

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  14. @Rational

    Re: There are many stories of black adopted kids murdering their white adopting families.

    Really? How about detailing a couple because just stating it doesn’t make it so.

  15. Wyatt says:

    In a healthy, functioning society, people would be asking her, “what in the fuck were you thinking adopting Haitians? How retarded are you to think that would be a good idea?”

    But we’re quite an unhealthy, non-functional society.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  16. Sean says:

    Safer for a wife to adopt a West African boy than an East Asian girl. Ask Mia Farrow.

    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  17. ariel says:

    international adoptions have been in decline since 2005 , americans mostly adopt chinese girls, colombians and eastern european children ( Ukraine,Poland,Hungary Bulgaria)

    • Replies: @Alden
  18. @Sean

    Safer still not to adopt either.

  19. Trinity says:

    I agree, subjecting your white children to live with Blacks, particularly adopting a black male when you have young white daughters is indeed CHILD ABUSE. Obviously this woman has never had to deal with Blacks in the REAL WORLD. She NEVER attended a public school full of Blacks, or worked around REAL BLACKS. Whites who have had to deal with REAL BLACKS can’t get far enough away from them, and here is this woman voluntarily adopting them. smdh.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  20. I’m surprised that the Hindoo-Dindoo from Californistan did axe her about the Haitians – but it might have upset her masters. It could be a case of innocent motive as many above have argued. It could be a case of extreme virtue-signaling as others have pointed out. Barrett’s Catholicism means nothing at all in terms of her positions. Old Sniffy-Sniffy-Porno-Pop is a Catholic, no? The present pope of that organization is a monster, poossibly a full-bore pedo. Even Hyper-Catholics like Ann Barnhardt have pointed out he’s an anti-pope. The part Barnhardt misses is that Hi-Fellatin’ Franny would not have been possible were it not for his equally apostate predecessors (they just hid it better than he does). The key here is Vatican II, which is basically a declaration of total apostasy. Not one of them repudiated it, did they?

    A far more important unasked question about the Haitians in the determination of what really drives Barrett to this position would be from whom did she obtain these two? Was it some Catholic NGO connected to the Clinton Foundation – so very active in Haiti after the earthquake? If so, there’s a chance Barrett merely enjoys walnut sauce with her pizza, much in the same way her fellow Catholic John Podesta does. That would not be a good thing at all, since we already have at least one SCOTUS puppet on the old pizza-string. Bush appointee John Roberts, who appears on the logs of the famous plane called the Lolita Express to Mr. Epstein’s exclusive Pleasure Island resort.

  21. @Verymuchalive

    An excellent – and much overlooked – point. This alone is a major strike against her. Leaving aside completely the point I raised before about the precise source of these Haitian adoptions. She could still turn out to be a better blackrobe than Ginsburg, but that’s a very low bar indeed.

  22. Alden says:

    Helen Brown had no children and didn’t get married till her mid thirties. That book she wrote was career and other advice for young single women, not married women. Her magazine was a young single, not married women’s magazine.

    Her career advice was excellent. The employees glued to their cell phones all day should read it.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  23. songbird says:

    Within clan society in Ireland and the Highlands, there used to be a lot of fosterage. The children of nobles were often placed, at a very young age (say 4), into other homes, even when they weren’t orphans. Sometimes it was to learn a skill or to develop social bonds, perhaps also to protect the children, or give them lifelong friends they could trust.

    Families who fostered children often received some benefit. Like cattle, or the possibility of lower rent.

    It might be that this custom was once more widespread within Europe, and that European women are in some respect still hardwired to take advantage of it.

    • Replies: @Alden
  24. Well, SCOTUS is in session about 20 days a year nowadays so ACB will have plenty of time to raise her defective children, her own and the adopted. When questions of race come her way, this privileged priss, having never been around blacks she didn’t adopt, is gonna put her fellow Whites under the black jack boot, that’s a certainty. I’m in serious doubt this is a ‘win’. The woman is damaged.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  25. @Trinity

    Look at the simp she’s married to and ask which is the husband. He has zero say in anything. Very weak man.

  26. No thing wrong with helping the underprivelleged.. and I would guess – having adopted friends in my friend group – she understands that biology is a big wall to integration, that cannot be scaled. At least I hope so for their family’s sake!

    Still, that question from the twitter video link was lame, the real issue is whether Amy’s family stay in touch with the biological parents.. many reasons why this may be impossible or unreasonable, but truly kind adoption should not force kids away from their biological parents, unless absolutely necessary.. That would be my (D) ‘stab-with-the-personal’ question. But Dems don’d get genetics (or humans), so would never give a shit about how a kid feels at 20, wanting to connect with who actually brought them into the world (even if their adopted family was wonderful)!

  27. @Jim Christian

    You literally have ‘Christian’ in your name!

    OK yes, IQ matters, intelligence matters, but should it be valued above kindness?

  28. Alden says:

    Working as a judge, any judge is actually a far easier job and takes much less time than working as a lawyer.

    In many ways, it’s ideal for someone with young children, much better than working as an attorney or most jobs. Long lunch to make Dr dentist appointments and other arrangements for kids, off at 4 , 3 on Friday afternoons. Compared to the 40 and 50 hour weeks most people work, it’s almost a part time job.

    The best thing about woman judges is that they are less likely to come back from lunch drunk, high or stoned than men.

    The higher level the judge the easier the job is. Above the county municipal court level, most of the work is done by clerks. The findings and rulings of the geriatric Supreme Court clinic make and over turn laws, but the research is done and the findings and rulings are made by the clerks.

    Few conservatives fulminating against Supreme Court rulings realize the work is done by militant ambitious young clerks . With a lot of advice from old professors like Lawrence Tribe.

    She will be working fewer hours than most people.

    Attorneys, court clerks reporters and bailiffs Know this. You people unfamiliar with the courts seem to think judges work long hard hours. They don’t

    Sometimes the ignorance on this site is unbelievable. Nothing wrong with being completely unfamiliar with the legal and court system and how judges work. But don’t make ignorant assumptions about federal judges working hours.

    Anti abortion seems to be the most important cause for the MEN OF UNZ. You all are just fine with affirmative action discrimination against Whites.

    But the thought of blacks and brown aborting their affirmative action entitled likely to be life long criminal welfare burdens on the White taxpayer you want to prevent so Whites are overwhelmed and destroyed by even more blacks and browns than we have now.

    And which of you ….., ranting that she has to stay home to take care of her children is able to support a stay at home wife and 7 kids? Probably none of you.

    Half the comments on every thread are rants about the low fertility of White women you don’t know and will never know. None of you are able to support a stay at home wife and 7 children. I doubt most of you are even married and fathering the White children you think other Whites should have.

    So along comes a couple with 5 White children and you heap much hate on her, just as you heap much hate on all White women. An old fashioned Fraudian psychiatrist would just assume you are all gay or impotent because of your hatred of women.

    Remember Sarah Palin Republican VP candidate with 5 children and how the democrats liberals and feminazis hated her?

    You conservative anti abortion big family anti working married women White women hating MEN OF UNZ are saying the same things about Amy Barrett. At least like Jew Sarah Bernhardt, none of you White women haters have not yet wished Barrett be gang raped and murdered by blacks.

    Barrett is just one half of a married couple. But you all refuse to recognize the husband adopted the Haitians same as she did.

    Standard UNZ hatred of White women and spouting total ignorance of the light workload of judges at every level. That’s the MEN OF UNZ losers who can’t get a White woman

  29. Alden says:

    Chinese, Columbians, Ukrainian s, Poles, Bulgarian adoptees aren’t international adoptees when adopted by Americans?

    Poland has never allowed its children to be internationally adopted by the way. Poland has a marriage before kids culture. That means few children need adoption.

  30. @Jim Christian

    I read today that she testified that she cried with one of her adopted Haitians about the death of George Floyd. In addition to immigration, she’ll be very unreliable on racial preference cases; what do high Asian test scores matter in comparison to the sublime Negritude of her Haitian housepets? I’m now hoping that the Democrats can block her.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    , @Corvinus
  31. Alden says:

    Fostering was widespread in N Europe among all classes from ancient times right up to the 18th century. Babies were often sent to live in the country with the wet nurse and her family till they were about 2 & 1/2. Part of it was fear of the filth and disease of cities. as late as the 1700s it was very common.

    Many apprentices started between 7 and 9 and lived with employers not their families. Even if the apprentice’s family lived right across the street the child apprentices lived with the employer.,

    The fostering of every child was because of the high death rate. Same with the Christian God parents, another set of parents already picked in case the parents died.

    The White woman hating MEN OF UNZ are just being bitchy about Barrett and her family. The White woman hating MEN OF UNZ hate White women so much they just criticize and hate because they hate and resent White women because they can’t get a White or any women.

  32. @Alden

    I agree with you. The point I was making is this strategy does not work for married women with young children. Something has to give. If they prioritise their career, they spend less and less time with their children, who are offloaded onto relatives or hired help. The vast majority of women are unwilling to do this. They prioritise their children;
    If you are a married woman with young children, you cannot Have it all

  33. RE: the suggestion that black adopted children (boys in particular) will kill the parents, harm the siblings, become like Colin Kaepernick.

    So despite what Brimelow says, VDARE is a white nationalist website (which is ok).

    Obviously the main objection that white nationalists are going to have to this woman adopting black children is the implication that families that are composed of two white parents and ONLY their biological children (or children that could plausibly be their biological children) are not the norm. They will see that if whites continue to do this, in the future there will be fewer (or no) white families.

    Additionally, bringing non-white (and particularly black) children into the family means the family will be necessarily open to their white children marrying non-whites (blacks in ACB’s case). How can you suggest to your children they shouldn’t marry someone who looks like their brother/sister?

    So, the complaints that the black boy will do bad things to the family is an exaggerated distraction.

    VDARE/Welton and their readers’ main objection is going to be that ACB’s (very publicly visible) family suggests that in the future there won’t be any white families. And, I suppose, their white biological children will have less parental investment/resources than if they parents hadn’t adopted.

    Sometimes you just have to state things explicitly.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  34. Trinity says:
    @Jim Christian

    Yes, he should have put his foot down on this one, hell, all we know it could have been his idea. I LOVE the fact that they have 5 beautiful White children, hell, looks like that would be enough for anyone in this day and age. HOWEVER, what kind of White man or woman, does this to his White son much less White daughters? PLENTY of poor White kids out there to be adopted, and this couple adopts two black as coal Haitians and one is a male who thinks muh dik 24/7.

  35. Hibernian says:

    Blonde haired blued eyed, and Black, images of Jesus are both incorrect. The Italian Renaissance depictions of Him are the most correct. He was a Mediterranean; after all, Israel is a Mediterranean country.

  36. Hibernian says:

    As a New Orleanian it is unlikely she was unaware of Black culture.

  37. Hibernian says:
    @Larry Holmgren

    Not to mention the statement by Cory Booker.

  38. Antiwar7 says:

    Sorry, this is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to mention that I had a friend who’s father was a judge, and he said it could be tough for sensitive people, because they have to make decisions affecting people’s lives with incomplete information. And it weighed on him.

    He probably was in the minority that way, but it was true for him and probably some others. Food for thought for people who want to become judges…

  39. @Diversity Heretic

    I’m now hoping that the Democrats can block her.

    Agree all, except this here block-quote. Somewhere along the way, she’s gotta prove better than a wise, sassy black woman. Still and all, you have a way with cloaked rhetoric, I’ll give ya that.

  40. @Alden

    The book on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, “Until Proven Innocent,” by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, pointed out a District Attorney has more power than a Judge, who’s mainly a referee.

    Vincent Bugliosi wrote how judges in general are mediocre lawyers with a political connection that got them on the bench. On TV and movies. judges are learned, fair, completely impartial, etc. Buglosi wrote, “This is not the reality.”

    When I attended the first trial for the female defendant in the Christian-Newsom torture-murders, Judge Richard Baumgartner fell asleep several times during testimony. It turned out Barmgartner was (literally) stoned.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  41. @Alden

    I was basing my views on my experience in Britain. I knew a senior ( now retired ) judge. The job was demanding and time consuming. Far more cases by percentage go to jury trials and more defendants are acquitted by juries. There is much less plea bargaining.

    By contrast, only 2% of US Federal criminal defendants go to trial and, of these, less than 1% are formally acquitted by a jury. The figures for non-Federal cases are similar.
    So a lot of judges will be underemployed.

    From what you say, being a judge in America seems to be a cushy number, unlike many parts of Europe. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. America is well on its way to being a kritarchy. The kritarch class obviously want terms and conditions for themselves that are much more comfortable than elsewhere.

    PS. I am not a “man of Unz”. I do comment here, as you do. I do not hate white women and have never said so. Despite what you have said about American judges, it is highly probable that the Barrett children have been cared by hired help most of the time. And no: I do not approve of interracial adoption.
    Barrett is from a wealthy family, as is her husband. I think it would be better if she had stayed at home and given her biological children her full attention. Too many white children have divorced parents, or sometimes no parents at all. We need more white children, and we need more well adjusted white children. I think stay-at-home white wives and mothers are to be commended.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  42. roonaldo says:

    Given the circumstances–unreliable Republican Senators, hostile media, and Democrats for whom no lie or fabrication is out of bounds, what other conservative choices were likely to be confirmable?

    A female was necessary or else you’ll likely lose the approval of female Senate Republicans and guarantee elaborate fabrications like Blasey Ford’s. A White candidate would face a slew of false accusers concocted by the DNC claiming past racist remarks were uttered, and weak Republicans would delay proceedings to hear lying witnesses, with the rabid press in full smear mode. However, her adopted Black children make the racist smear hazardous for the Dems as elections near and add virtue points to mollify Collins, Murkowski, and Mitt the Twit Romney. Still, it is certain the Dems left no stone unturned looking for dirt on ACB and apparently came up empty–this woman must be buckin’ for sainthood.

    All in all, getting a level-headed conservative judge appointed in a short time frame and in the current political climate is damn difficult, but it looks like it’s going to happen. Score one for the Orange Man.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  43. @roonaldo

    Looking at the politics of confirmation/rejection, you are very probably right. Coney Barrett is least likely to be rejected.
    I sincerely hope she is a level-headed conservative judge. After all, look what happened to John Roberts.

    • Replies: @roonaldo
  44. roonaldo says:

    John Roberts’ transformation into a Ruth Bader Ginsburg in drag is indeed a cautionary example, but ACB seems pretty solid, though perhaps I’m just clinging to wisps of hope. Hell, DNC operatives probably have a plan to splice Sotomayor and Hillary DNA into her while applying MK-ULTRA mind control–if she starts muttering like Biden we’ll know they succeeded!

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  45. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “I read today that she testified that she cried with one of her adopted Haitians about the death of George Floyd.”

    It demonstrates her Christian side.

    “In addition to immigration, she’ll be very unreliable on racial preference cases; what do high Asian test scores matter in comparison to the sublime Negritude of her Haitian housepets?”

    Characterizing children in that way is demonstrably risible.

    “I’m now hoping that the Democrats can block her”

    Wow, now you are making some sense.

  46. @roonaldo

    You mean the Ruth Baader Meinhof Gang. Despite being Chief Justice of SCOTUS, Roberts has been a complete nonentity. He has been completely overshadowed by underlings like Baader and Scalia. He has done absolutely what the permanent state wants him to do.
    The inference must be that the permanent state have a great deal of material with which they can blackmail him. Roberts is nothing but a complete minion.

  47. Adopting foreign kids is what wealthy Christian families will do.

    It’s to deflect envy of a lifestyle that includes a large house with staff. I doubt it is even conscious. They are showing that they share their wealth.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  48. @Cameron232

    So, the complaints that the black boy will do bad things to the family is an exaggerated distraction.

    Well it is a valid risk.

    Black boys are more likely to have behavioral problems. Adopted children are more likely to have behavioral problems.

    Why would you compound these two risk factors and then subject your children to the experiment?

    There are all kinds of horror stories online about adopted children attacking and sexually abusing biological children. Why would you take that risk?

    I think it is downright bizarre that people do this.

    The liberal establishment will undoubtedly push adoption as third world populations increase but it will eventually backfire as biology kicks in.

    • Replies: @Cameron232
    , @Kratoklastes
  49. @John Johnson

    Hi John,

    I think there is probably an increased risk with most adopted kids e.g. lower class white kids adopted from meth addicts. It might very well be worse with black kids (I don’t know if stats exist).
    My main point is some claims in above comments seemed over the top as if the boy raping his sisters or knifing the parents to death is inevitable. Normal people will see such claims as ridiculous and patently false and won’t even listen to the person saying this. So it is a distraction from the main concern which is that it should be normal for families to consist of all white people (or all black people for that matter) and that prominent public figures who display a counterexample are harmful to the future of white people.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  50. Corvinus says:

    “Amy Coney Barrett: Why Is No-One Asking About Her Haitian Adopted Children?”

    Because it’s not that big of a deal.

    “Conservatives are supposed to be evil racists, yet this committed Roman Catholic has adopted two black children from Haiti.”

    No, only conservatives who observe patent racist behaviors.

    “She’s a Christian who might replace an aggressive Jewish legislating Leftist”

    You mean she is an aggressive Christian who wields the cudgel of conservative judicial activism.

    But there’s another issue.

    “Amy Coney Barrett’s interracial adoptions do suggest that she may have no awareness of race realism–not impossible in her intellectual milieu.”

    Actually, she has patently aware. She just thinks differently than you.

    “The plain fact is that interracial adoptions regularly don’t work out well, for example in the case of Colin Kaepernick and born-again Never Trumper David Frum’s family.”

    I didn’t realize that plain facts in your world equate to baseless accusations.

    • Replies: @Talha
  51. Corvinus says:

    “I think it would be better if she had stayed at home and given her biological children her full attention.”

    We thank you for your opinion, but she knows what is best for her family.

    “We need more white children, and we need more well adjusted white children”.

    We need more children regardless of race to be well adjusted. Perhaps reading the Good Book and adhering to its messages would do you well when it comes to compassion and understanding.

  52. Talha says:

    I didn’t realize that plain facts in your world equate to baseless accusations.

    I’ve noticed there is a LOT of muh feelz discourse once you get far enough left and far enough right of things.

    Horseshoe theory keeps gaining traction.


    • Agree: Hibernian
  53. @John Johnson

    Sometimes there is a thing that emerges that furnishes a very quick way to partition humans into retards and normies, without having to check for the physiognomic characteristics of mongolism.

    The idea that adoptive parents face an increased risk of violent crime from black male adopted children, is such a thing.

    It is so preposterous – so cartoonish and stupid – that people who entertain it for a nanosecond mark themselves as cognitively incompetent.

    Look at some data on parricides: the easiest-to-get data indicates that were only 1208 parricides by under-18s in the US between 1976 and 1999 – s0 about 1 a week, and offenders were overwhelmingly white males. Some proportion of those will have been victims of abuse. Still, leave it stand at 1 a week: do you think that this should make people reconsider having kids because there’s a risk that their kids murder them?

    Now consider the same thing, but applied to adoption; then consider it again for inter-racial adoption of black boys.

    Only about 3% of families have adopted children (the number has varied over time), and the number of adopted black children in white households is a small fraction of that.

    So stack up the risks, and the risk of being murdered by a black adopted male child is roughly zero.

    Contrast that with the risk of being murdered by a white male adolescent child, if that child is taking prescription psychotropics. The risk is still nearly zero, but it’s several orders of magnitude greater than the risk of being murdered by an adopted black kid.

    If an adoptive parent should consider the lethal (or sexual) risk associated with adopting a black male infant, it stands to reason that a natural parent ought to consider the lethal risk of permitting their natural children from being prescribed prescription anti-psychotics and other mood-altering medication.

    Not to mention, they ought to strongly consider abortion on the basis that 1 parent a week gets killed by their own kid. (That’s where your asinine fake-logic leads: I’m happy with the conclusion because 95% of births are a drain on society).

    Find three news stories about white adoptive parents being killed by black adopted children – make sure they’re three different incidents – and post the links here: I’ll wait.

    Then note that six coloured adopted kids were deliberately killed by white [lesbian] couple in a single incident (the ‘Hart Family Crash’).

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  54. @Kratoklastes

    The idea that adoptive parents face an increased risk of violent crime from black male adopted children, is such a thing.

    It is so preposterous – so cartoonish and stupid – that people who entertain it for a nanosecond mark themselves as cognitively incompetent.

    Look at some data on parricides

    You are looking at homicide which is a miniscule fraction of violent crime that occurs in homes. Of those homicides you are looking at parricide which is extremely rare.

    Thus any conclusion using parricide as a measurement of risk for violent crime is misleading at best.

    So maybe you should consider that before calling people names.

    I don’t know why anyone would subject biological children to any type of risk with adopted children. If you don’t have biological children then that is a different case.

  55. @Cameron232

    Hi John,

    I think there is probably an increased risk with most adopted kids e.g. lower class white kids adopted from meth addicts. It might very well be worse with black kids (I don’t know if stats exist).
    My main point is some claims in above comments seemed over the top as if the boy raping his sisters or knifing the parents to death is inevitable.

    Hi Cameron,

    Yes I agree that concerns of knifing the parents to death is over the top.

    However sexual abuse of the siblings is a legitimate concern. Not simply rape but sexual pressure of adolescents. I highly doubt the odds are over 1/20. Of course such stats would never be released to the public out of concern that adoptions would decrease.

    I’ve read quite a bit about adoption and there seems to be a common pattern of adoption agencies lying about the past of the child. The couple returns the child and then the agency lies to someone else.

    Society still tries to believe in blank slate and it seems that adopting couples are often the victim.

    What a lot of people don’t realize is that adopting is very expensive and time consuming. There are too many good natured White couples that try to adopt out of liberal guilt because they have been conditioned to believe in blank slate. The unspoken factor is that biological parents of these children are often the worst of society. That wouldn’t matter if blank slate were true but if morality or perversion have even partly a genetic basis (most likely) then you sadly are adopting a mash-up of those genes. There really isn’t a good solution here as telling the truth would cause a whole new set of problems. But on a personal level I discourage adoption because I have seen the other side of it. It’s really a better idea to have some sex.

  56. @David In TN

    “Vincent Bugliosi wrote how judges in general are mediocre lawyers with a political connection that got them on the bench. On TV and movies, judges are learned, fair, completely impartial, etc. Bugliosi wrote, ‘This is not the reality.’”

    I can dig it. No doubt many judges aren’t the best lawyers one could find (yes, judicial selection is often based on political influence and inside pull). Then again, sometimes you get guys like Learned Hand. . . .

    (By the way, where did Bugliosi say this about judges? I’d to read it.)

    • Replies: @Presocratic
    , @Presocratic
  57. @Alden

    I won’t mind-read the motives of those UNZ commenters who are critical of ACB, as you seem to be doing. But you are correct in suggesting that her job as a Supreme Court justice with lifetime tenure will give her plenty of time to raise her kids. As a practicing lawyer who has worked at a large firm, and knows several judges, I can say that the job of a judge, and especially an appellate judge is far less stressful and time-consuming than that of a lawyer. The Supreme Court conducts oral argument on the 80 to 100 cases it hears each term on about 40 to 50 days designated for arguments. The justices discuss each of those cases together in a conference after the oral argument. The work of reading appellate briefs and memos written by her three law clerks, and drafting opinions in those cases in which she will write a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion can be done from home. The Court is not in session during the summer months. This is a wonderful job for a woman who wants to balance career and motherhood.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  58. Hibernian says:
    @John Johnson

    Only extremely wealthy people have a household staff anymore, unless a staff of one counts. My cousin the bank lawyer, whose husband is a lawyer with a small neighborhood practice, used to have one employee, not sure if she was full time, or almost full time, to help her with the kids, plus some other work. When the kids left the nest they didn’t need her any more. I know she was never live in.

    I’m fairly sure the Barretts are not in the extremely wealthy category.

  59. sarz says:

    Jesus: Whatever you did for the least of these you did for me.

  60. @Orville H. Larson

    From experience as a litigation lawyer, I would say having a good deal of common sense and a decent temperament is more important to being a good trial judge than being learned and very smart. For appellate judges, the latter qualities – and writing ability – assume much greater importance.

  61. @Orville H. Larson

    Bugliosi was by all accounts a skilled trial lawyer with a lot of common sense, practical intelligence and charisma. But if his foray into Supreme Court jurisprudence – his book “No Island of Sanity” – is any indication, I would not have wanted to hire him as an appellate lawyer, let alone have him serve as an appellate judge. That book about the Paula Jones case was an embarrassing screed, even if one believes as he did that the High Court got that one wrong.

  62. @Presocratic

    ” . . . This is a wonderful job for a woman who wants to balance career and motherhood.”

    This “wonderful job” for a woman who wants to “have it all” is nice work–if you can get it. The Supreme Court is nine unelected, unaccountable megalomaniacs. They legislate from the bench. They’re ethics-free. They do whatever they want–and nobody will tell them otherwise.

    Yeah, as Amy Coney Barrett takes up her cushy lifetime gig, she can truly “balance career and motherhood”!

  63. Yes, too many judges are politicians with robes. But I don’t think that is a fair characterization of Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas and Kavanaugh, whatever disagreements one might have with a particular decision any of them joined. And unless ACB does a complete reversal, she won’t be legislating from the bench either. I expect these six justices to do the vital job of reining in judges in the lower courts who fit your description. We really need that now more than ever, especially in immigration law, where lower court judges, mostly Democratic appointees, have made a shambles of the Constitution since Trump’s election.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS