Liberals Exposing Their Hate For The Constitution And The Amendment Process

TheStruggle

Yellow Card
Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
28,152
Reaction score
2
Democrats are attacking Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch for being a "originalist", basically saying that he doesn't use emotions, or feelings, or judging fair and unfair when making his decision as a Judge in the USA, he only cites the Constitution and the way it was written.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has made it her mission to kill Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination for the Supreme Court but so far she’s doing a very poor job of it. Judge Gorsuch’s job isn’t to “fight” for anyone, he’s supposed to be upholding our laws. The law doesn’t play favorites, the law simply is, and a judge’s job is simply to determine how to best uphold the law in each case.

"This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling," Feinstein said Monday. "I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves," pointing out that under originalism, schools would still be segregated and women would not be allowed to vote.


Here's what Democrats fail to understand about our Constitution, we have a process called "the amendment process" meaning if you feel something is wrong or something that the federal government needs to address, then you must get 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the US States to agree with your logic and add it to the Constitution. This is what happened with Slavery and women's right to vote. It was amended in the Constitution and turned into law. but what Democrats don't like, is that as written, the Constitution does NOT gave them the right to do whatever the hell they like especially things that was not a given right to the Federal Government like healthcare, education, and gay marriage. So now Democrats want you to believe, any who follows the words of the Constitution as they are written is a bad person because...civil rights, LGBTQI, or something.


But Feinstein's exchange with Gorsuch is exposing the true views of democratic party on how they view, the Constitution, the history, and law process of our country.
 
Franken was unbearable. I'd rather listen to Stuart fucking Smally talk to himself for 3 hours straight than hear him ask another question to Gorsuch.
 
WRONG.

Under the Mitch McConnell Rule a president that won the people's vote and the electoral college doesn't have a right to nominate a judge during the last quarter of his term.

So a Fake President who doesn't even win the people's vote has no right to nominate anyone.

The constitution doesn't require 9 judges.
 
Where in the Constitution does it says that corporations are people?
 
its hard to sympathize with the op, being that the republicans basically stole this nomination in the first place.

idk why the liberals were so meek when dealing with this. they should have called reps out for failure to perform the duties of office when they refused to even have a hearing on merrick garland.

"hate for the constitution" lololol yes.....im sure thats it. they just hate freedom.
 
From the exchanges I've seen, he clowned every democrat that asked a douchey question. They didn't get what they were fishing for.
 
Republicans exposed their hate for the Constitution when they blocked the Garland nomination based solely on the fact it was Obama's last year in office. Republicans decided Presidential terms only last three years I guess.
 
Neil is not a bad pick, but the Democrats better make a scene about confirming him just because the Republicans stole the appointment.
 
WRONG.

Under the Mitch McConnell Rule a president that won the people's vote and the electoral college doesn't have a right to nominate a judge during the last quarter of his term.

So a Fake President who doesn't even win the people's vote has no right to nominate anyone.

The constitution doesn't mandate 9 judges.

Obama could have nominated anyone he wanted but the Republicans could not aprove or vote.

Congress set the number.

As to the OP. It doesn't surprise me.
 
its hard to sympathize with the op, being that the republicans basically stole this nomination in the first place.

idk why the liberals were so meek when dealing with this. they should have called reps out for failure to perform the duties of office when they refused to even have a hearing on merrick garland.

"hate for the constitution" lololol yes.....im sure thats it. they just hate freedom.


Look up 'Borking' and come back with a better response.
 
idk why the liberals were so meek when dealing with this. they should have called reps out for failure to perform the duties of office when they refused to even have a hearing on merrick garland.

I agree. Obama blew it. He waited so damn long to nominate Garland in the first place, eating up a month plus. And then they never really fought for it. I think it's because they thought Hillary was going to win to be honest.

He should have nominated somebody right away and then shut down government until there was a floor vote.
 
Republicans exposed their hate for the Constitution when they blocked the Garland nomination based solely on the fact it was Obama's last year in office. Republicans decided Presidential terms only last three years I guess.


Again...Borking
 
quality post, and thread. keep going. deflect deflect deflect...exaggerate and misrepresent.

are you paid to do this?


Funny because this thread is about the Constitution and the amendment process but like most democrats you shown that you don't understand either
 
Funny because this thread is about the Constitution and the amendment process but like most democrats you shown that you don't understand either

im a democrat? err...alright.

did the reps care about the constitution when they refused to show merrick garland a hearing for months on end? refused to even vote on him = failure to perform duties of office.
 
Look up 'Borking' and come back with a better response.
Bork got a floor vote. He lost six Republicans in that floor vote. Garland would have been confirmed with a floor vote hence McConnell and Grassley wouldn't let it out of Judiciary for a floor vote.
 
Democrats were pretty cringeworthy in the hearing today. He did a great job demonstrating he knew 5x more about the law than those asking the snarky questions.
 
Democrats were pretty cringeworthy in the hearing today. He did a great job demonstrating he knew 5x more about the law than those asking the snarky questions.

I'm sure Merrick Garland would have done equally well under questioning if given the opportunity.
 
Back
Top