During the Senate confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, several democrats suggested that Trump’s nominee was unfit to serve because he believes in the Constitution. Seeing as how the job of Supreme Court Justice is to determine the Constitutionality of things, this seems like a pretty bizarre argument, but democrats aren’t known for being rational. Speaking of which, California democrat Kamala Harris says she won’t be voting to confirm Gorsuch because he bases his decisions on the law instead of feelings.
Harris tweeted out this stunning statement today:
Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination. https://t.co/7SLAOI6MXx
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) March 24, 2017
“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination,” wrote Harris.
Legalism? Oh I get it, she means the law. How dare a judge make rulings on what the law actually says when people’s feelings might be hurt, right? After all, we are a nation of feelings, not laws. Gosh, now that I have written that out it seems like the opposite might be true.
She also linked to an op-ed she wrote for the SF Chronicle with even more silliness. Check this shit out:
The stakes don’t get any higher. Some argue that if a nominee has a stellar legal resume, he or she is qualified to sit on the bench and our job is done. I disagree. As U.S. senators, we have an obligation to also examine a nominee’s legal approach and ask whether he or she considers the impact of those decisions on our society and the daily lives of our people.
In case you are failing to understand what she just said, it is her argument that a qualified judge is unqualified if he or she rules by law instead of worrying about how people will feel.
Harris even writes:
President Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, certainly has a paper resume that would impress legal scholars.
…Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I must do what’s right. I cannot support his nomination.
Keep in mind that before Kamala Harris was gifted Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat, she was the California Attorney General. In other words, she is a lawyer who had a job to interpret and defend the law. I think it’s clear by her opposition to Neil Gorsuch that she threw the law out the window and let her feelings (liberal feelings) dictate her decisions and actions.
The great thing about liberals is they don’t even pretend that they’re not full of shit. If their biggest problem with Gorsuch is that he follows the law then they don’t have a problem at all.
And yet they do have a problem and it doesn’t have anything to do with Gursuch’s consistant legal ruling. What they really hate is that he isn’t a liberal who will dismiss the law in favor of pushing a whacko leftist agenda. Again this is a problem, but not a real one.