This Is CNN

Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court gave that network and its progressive allies another opportunity kindle the fires of resentment and condescension while pretending to neutrality.

Somebody asked for an opinion roundup, so the "Baracksters" put the ball in play by damning with faint praise: "Amy Coney Barrett a perfect choice for half of America" set the tone they were striving for.

"Michelletians" would have made the same point less underhandedly, claiming something like "Barrett's nomination represents a failure of inclusivity."

In the opinion roundup about Judge Barrett, CNN staffers solicited contributions from 10 different people.

An upbeat assessment of Barrett's potential influence follows the gloomy one, and that contributor notes that "If Barrett is confirmed, John Roberts' short stint as the median justice will end, and we can expect a Supreme Court jurisprudence that, like it or not, will be more principled." Did you catch the "Like it or not"? What's not to like about principled jurisprudence? Any other kind of legal decision-making is whimsical at best, but this is CNN, so it's clever to acknowledge that more than a few progressives view principles as impediments to power.

In another sop to progressives, one contributor urged readers to see Amy Coney Barrett as a worthy consolation prize, because her nomination to the Supreme Court is "Truly a triumph of Ginsburg's equality project." That's a sunny interpretation I might actually concur with, but for the important note that Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could also be described as having "Equality projects."

The final score in the opinion roundtable for anyone playing along at home was 7 aghast at or fearful of Barrett's nomination, and 3 in favor of it.

https://spectator.org/this-is-cnn/