What& #39;s interesting about people like Amy Coney Barrett is that we& #39;re told they are brilliant and yet they cannot connect the dots that lead to the obvious conclusion that their positions that their views are destined to be recognized as wrong because they are ill-founded 1/x

Barrett acknowledges that Brown v Board was rightly decided. But she does not recognize that it was controversial at the time, and that its opponents were the essentially the same people who opposed, say, Lawrence v Texas. (Including, presumably, Judge Barrett). 2/x

Barrett acknowledges that cigarettes cause cancer but says that climate change is controversial--again she doesn& #39;t understand the essential similarity between one "corporate interests vs science" contest and another. 3/x

This makes her (and others like her) seem either willfully immoral/foolish or just plain not that smart. She may have the cover, on some issues, of the views of 40% of the electorate today, but she won& #39;t have that in 20 years. 4/x

This speaks to the real challenge facing modern conservatism: it must be grounded on something other than racism, misogyny, and venal corporate interests if it is to take positions that endure sustained scrutiny and reason. I hope someday soon it does. 5/5