A Supreme Court Justice literally has only one job: to uphold the Constitution. Donald Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch is what is known as a “Constitutional originalist” meaning that he adheres directly to what the Constitution says and what the framers intended. As Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings got underway Monday, Senate democrats appear to have a problem with his tendency to rule court cases based on constitutionality. Seriously, the liberal opposition is pitching a fit because a Supreme Court nominee agrees with the Constitution.
First up we have joke legislator Al Franken from Minnesota who said this at Monday’s hearing:
“Justice Scalia embraced a rigid view of our Constitution, a view blind to the equal dignity of LGBT people, and hostile to women’s reproductive rights, and a view that often refused to acknowledge the lingering animus in laws and policies that perpetuate the racial divide. Judge Gorsuch, while no one can dispute the late Justice Scalia’s love of the Constitution, the document he revered looks very different from the one that I have sworn to support and defend,” said Franken.
So Al Franken has a different Constitution than the one former Justice Scalia and current nominee Gorsuch do? If at all possible I would like to see Franken’s Constitution. It might actually help explain why democrats think the way they do if they have an alternate blueprint for America.
Not to be outdone, California Senator Dianne Feinstein went full crazy with her statements. First, she suggested that the Constitution, presumably Grouch’s and not Franken’s, was irrelevant because it was written at a time when “women had been burned at stake for witchcraft.”
Really? This is what someone on the Senate Intelligence Committee thinks? For the record, the Salem Witch Trials of which she speaks took place in 1693 and were BTW in liberal Massachusetts and under British rule. The US Constitution was first put into action in 1789, more than a hundred years after women were burned for being witches.
Then, according to Townhall, Feinstein went a little crazier:
She did not seem to have much confidence in the nominee. Feinstein is disturbed by Gorsuch’s originalism, she argued, because she believes the concept “ignores the intent of the framers.”
As pointed out earlier, a Constitutional originalist follows exactly what the framers’ intent was when they drafted the Constitution. This is like saying an evolutionist doesn’t believe in evolution or an abortionist doesn’t believe in abortion.
“It’s a framework on which to build. I firmly believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves as our country evolves,” said Feinstein.
In reality it is the Supreme Court’s job is to rule on the Constitution as it exists. It’s the job of the Congress to amend the Constitution if they want to “evolve” it. You’d think someone who is actually in Congress would be aware of this.
No matter how you look at it, democrats are trying to say that Gorsuch isn’t qualified to serve on the Supreme Court because he has the qualities of a Supreme Court Justice. All this really proves is that Franken and Feinstein aren’t qualified to serve in Congress, or even spinning signs on street corner for a mattress sale for that matter.
