So, just how far to the left are those who reside in
what can easily be referred to as the ‘Socialist Republic of Vermont’? To justify using that moniker one need look
no further than to who it is that they have been sending to Congress for the
last few decades. You could very easily
refer to the congressional delegation from that state as being “The Three
Stooges” of leftwing politics. Because
besides ‘Leaky’ Leahy (76) in the Senate, you also have Bernie ‘The Socialist’
Sanders (75) and over in the House you have Peter Welch. Now the average age of this little cadre of
leftists is 73, with Welch being the youngest at 69. Now you cannot tell me that these three
represent the best and brightest that Vermont might have to offer. But then again, maybe they are. After all, it’s Howard Dean who was once
their governor.
But be that as it may, my purpose here is not to
rant about the loons from any one state.
I choose, instead, to focus primarily on Patrick Leahy, aka ‘Leaky’
Leahy, and how it is that the Senate Democrats approach the confirmation
process, especially for a nominee who does not come from the far-off-leftwing-kook-fringe. Or for a nominee who does not view the
Constitution as they do, as a living, breathing document, but as it was
intended by the men who actually wrote it.
Two Democrats told Judge Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing
yesterday, during what were described as being “opening remarks”, that it’s not
a good thing for a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution based on
the Founders’ original intent. I’m quite
sure the spirit of old Teddy Kennedy was in the room somewhere.
It was old ‘Leaky” who said, “In contrast to past
nominees like John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy was not clearly
articulated when he appeared before this committee, Judge Gorsuch appears to
have a comprehensive originalist philosophy, the approach taken by jurors such
as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, former Judge Bork.” And he went on to say, “While it has gained
some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains
outside the mainstream of moderate constitutional jurisprudence.” And, he added, “It has been 25 years since an
originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we've seen from
Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas and Judge Gorsuch on record, I worry that it
goes beyond being a philosophy and it becomes an agenda.” Seriously?
The late Justice Antonin Scalia once defined
originalism this way: "The
Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer
to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the
court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was
adopted." But it was at Monday’s
hearing that ‘Leaky’ urged Gorsuch to answer all questions asked of him at the
hearing “as clearly as possible.” He
said, “It's important to understand -- determine whether you understand the
court has a profound impact on small businesses and workers, on law enforcement
and victims, on families and children across America.” And then went on to say, “It is not contrary
to the duties and obligations of a Supreme Court justice to consider the
effects of their rulings.”
Leahy actually said that the confirmation hearing
will help the Senate decide if Gorsuch is “committed to the fundamental rights
of all Americans". He asked, “Will
you allow the government to include our Americans’ personal privacy and
freedom? Will you elevate the rights of corporations over those of real people?
And will you rubberstamp a president whose administration has asserted that
executive power is not subject to judicial review?” Actually, from the Democrat perspective, at
least when it is a conservative nominee involved, the confirmation process
provides an opportunity for the many allies of the left in our state-controlled
media as well as various leftist organizations like moveon.org, to come up with
ways to attempt to destroy those nominees who possesses a non-leftist view of
the Constitution.
Dianne Feinstein, (83), also expressed concern
regarding “originalist” philosophy. She
said, “Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the
original, public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision
of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist,
judicial philosophy to be really troubling." She added, "In essence, it means that
judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as
they were understood in 1789.” She said,
“However, to do so would not only ignore the intent of the framers, but the
Constitution would be a framework on which to build. But it severely limits the
genius of what our Constitution upholds. I firmly believe the American
Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”
And it was at the beginning of the ‘hearing’ that
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned
Gorsuch that he would get questions that would, undoubtedly, cause him to
scratch his head. He said, “We'll hear
that when you rule for one party and against another in a case, it means you
must be for the winner and against the loser. Senators will cite some opinions
of yours and then we'll hear that you're for the big guy and against the little
guy. You will scratch your head when you hear this, because it's as if you
judges write the laws instead of us senators.”
And he went on to say, “But if Congress passes a bad law, as a judge,
you are not allowed to just pretend that we passed a good law. The oath you
take demands that you follow the law, even if you dislike the result.”
Sen. Grassley said, “So if you hear that you're for
some business or against some plaintiff, don't worry. We've heard all of that
stuff before. It's an old claim from an even older playbook. You and I and the
American people know whose responsibility it is to correct a law that produces
a result that you dislike, it's the men and women sitting here with me. And closed by saying, “Good judges understand
this. They know it isn't their job to fix the law. In a democracy, that right
belongs to the people. It's for this reason that Justice Scalia said this,
quote, ‘If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign
yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you
reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.”
What we have here is nothing more than a very clear
admission by the Democrats that they do not follow the Constitution, nor do
they possess any desire to. Out of their
own mouths they admit they will manipulate the Constitution however, and
whenever, necessary in order to advance their leftwing, anti-America agenda. They view it being more like a set of
guidelines etched in ‘Jell-O’ than the actual set of rules that has propelled
this young nation into a position of power, wealth and prosperity, and a
country whose liberties allow for the poorest to gain great wealth, which these
Democrats seem so intent upon destroying.
Human nature has not changed, the evil our Founders fought still exists,
but now they call themselves the Democrat Party. They are the people our
Founders warned us about.
Democrats are type of individuals that our Founders
attempted to hold at bay with our original Constitution, it is no wonder the
liberal Democrats of today want to destroy it.
Pay close attention to the content of questions asked of Judge Gorsuch.
The left will clearly expose their preference for rewriting or creating law by
judicial fiat rather than by sound legislation or constitutional
amendment. That is why they have worked
so hard to pack all the federal courts. It is known as election insurance. What
they can't get through Congress they will finagle through the courts. Just look at the rulings from those activist
judges to President Trump's temporary ban on some Moslem countries who support
terrorism. They operated well outside of
their jurisdictions, to say nothing about the constitutionality of their
rulings.
Let’s be clear, Trump was elected by originalists,
so WE'LL be deciding the policy, thank you very much. Oh the arrogance of these jerks, it just
never seems to end. It likely goes
without saying that I strongly disagree with the position taken and the
statements made by old ‘Leaky’ and Feinstein that the Constitution should not
be interpreted as the Founders intended.
Because as far as I’m concerned that’s EXACTLY how it should be
interpreted, as the Founders intended.
Furthermore, "Advice and Consent" does not mean that either you
see things our way or you don't get confirmed.
It means, let's make sure the President didn't nominate someone
completely and bizarrely unqualified, as Barry was allowed to do, with
unqualified meaning far more than you simply see things differently than we do.
So it’s various shades of gray that has become the
prominent theme of America's very corrupt, and blatantly dishonest, Democrat
Party. The law is nothing more than what you want it to be, when you want it to
be. Geez, what a bunch of loons. And it’s those on the left who define
“evolves”, “as being able to make up the rules as one goes along in order to make
it better fit the agenda at the time, then change them when it goes against you.” Democrats refuse to accept the premise that
the ‘intent’ of the Founders that was true for the Constitution at the time of
its drafting, is just as true today.
That’s the true genius of the document that is our Constitution. The principles hold up through time. Not that you can bend it and twist it to be
whatever your whims tell you that it should be on any given day.
Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as well as Judge Robert
Bork were and are all very great men, and great jurists. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
Land, and should not be openly interpreted to be changed every day based on
some leftist whim. The original intent,
and original words and original understanding are still very much valid, much
to the chagrin of those on the left.
Constitutionalists are what we need on the courts, not those who would
rule based on their "emotions" or their "desires" or their
political views, only on what the Constitution states and the laws passed under
and within the authority of the Constitution.
This is simply proof the Democrats are unconstitutional and guilty of
sedition and subversion. And sadly, many
who call themselves Republicans are as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment