Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama before her, wants no part of rational thought, being in the U.S. Senate or supporting the Rule of Law. She is running for President, using the Senate, like Obama, to promote radical, anti-freedom platform concepts. Now she has exposed herself as a hater of the Constitution.
“Friday morning, the former Golden State attorney general made known that she wouldn’t support Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Antonin Scalia because he “has consistently valued legalisms over real lives.”
Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I cannot support his nomination.https://t.co/ocDD7DvKnd
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 24, 2017
As the former Attorney General of California did she avoid the law in making her decisions? Obviously. If a judge does not use the law to make decisions, they then use their emotions and political ideology instead. That is how totalitarians take over—by over throwing the Rule of Law. The good news is that President Harris has exposed herself as an enemy of freedom and the people—Putin would be proud of her.
This Calif. Dem Just Gave the Dumbest, Most Ignorant Reason to Oppose Gorsuch … EVER
by Nate Madden, Restoring Liberty, 3/24/17
Freshman Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., might have one of the most disturbing – albeit increasingly common – arguments against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee yet: He’s not a judicial activist.
Friday morning, the former Golden State attorney general made known that she wouldn’t support Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Antonin Scalia because he “has consistently valued legalisms over real lives.”
Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I cannot support his nomination.https://t.co/ocDD7DvKnd
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 24, 2017
Naturally, the idea that a judge ought not be more concerned with the application of the law, rather than its outcome, raised some eyebrows.
Legalisms as in…the law? https://t.co/lQHYgNNbiT
— Karol Markowicz (@karol) March 24, 2017
“legalisms” https://t.co/oVleAavOTB
— Ian Tuttle (@iptuttle) March 24, 2017
“Legalisms” is like the complaint about constitutional rights being “technicalities”
— Ed Krayewski (@edkrayewski) March 24, 2017
Once upon a time, a judge was supposed to care about “legalisms.”
….FFS https://t.co/6Tc4a9Tk5K
— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 24, 2017
Harris links to her recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, where the senator seeks to paint Trump’s nominee in the same league as the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz, a creature desperately in search of a heart.
The implication? Our jurists should be more concerned with emotions and outcomes versus faithful application of the law, and Neil Gorsuch is a big meanie-head.
But that supposedly absent heart debuted on the judge’s sleeve during the hearings. Faced with such questions and accusations multiple times this hearing, the answer or implication thereof has been simple: He didn’t like the outcome, but that’s the law as written (i.e., his job). If legislators don’t like it, change the law or pass a new one.
In her defense, Senator Harris is quite new to her position and may not quite be used to the job of a federal legislator, but she and the 534 members of Congress have the power to change laws and outcomes they don’t like. It’s all lined out in Article I of the Constitution.
But rather than embrace her role as a legislator and Gorsuch’s as a judge, Harris opts to openly defend judicial activism and cite it as the definitive reason for fighting his confirmation, quoting Thurgood Marshall’s aphorism to “do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
One only wonders what any of the founders would think of that statement from a member of the “weakest branch of government,” or the use of it to defend bench legislation by a U.S. Senator. Well, they wouldn’t like it.
As stated concisely by attorney T. Greg Doucette, “I’m sure there are intellectually honest reasons to oppose Gorsuch. ‘Legalisms over real lives – for a judge – is not one of them.”
I’m sure there are intellectually honest reasons to oppose Gorsuch. “Legalisms over real lives” – for a judge – is not one of them.
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) March 24, 2017
About Stephen Frank
Speak Your Mind