Wednesday, March 22, 2017 by JD Heyes
Our nation’s founding fathers crafted the Judicial Branch to be the protector of natural, “inalienable” rights enshrined in the Constitution, and that the U.S. Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of laws and rules made by the Legislative and Executive Branches in deciding which of them infringed upon those universally recognized rights.
But unfortunately for us, one political party doesn’t believe that should be the role of a Supreme Court justice, and that would be the Democratic Party. In fact, one of its long-serving members just admitted as much.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in a statement made at the beginning of Senate confirmation hearings for President Donald J. Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, said she is “afraid” that he may be an “originalist” – that is, a jurist who believes justices ought to rule on laws and rules based on our founders’ original intent behind the various articles and amendments passed at the country’s birth. (RELATED: Agenda 21: The Constitution Of The New World Order)
Feinstein, in other words, doesn’t believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, as it was intended to be by the founders. She thinks justices ought to apply a legal standard that considers what Americans today might favor or believe, not what the wise, sage men who wrote our founding document – which was written based on their studies of history and learned scholars like Plato and Aristotle – proscribed for all time.
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.”
“It’s a framework on which to build,” she said. “I firmly believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves as our country evolves.”
Feinstein went on to note that, for example, at the time of our founding and the Constitution’s adoption, slavery was legal and accepted in many parts of the new country. She argued that had the document not evolved over the centuries, slavery might still be in practice, schools might still be segregated, and the law would not treat women equally.
None of this, of course, stands up to serious scrutiny.
For one, it would be interesting to find out which “originalist” portions of the Constitution Feinstein and other liberal Democrats believe are out of date. Perhaps that part about guaranteeing free speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble peacefully? Or how about that part where the founders guaranteed our right to self-defense? Maybe Feinstein and company have fallen out of favor with that little part that guarantees privacy protections, or that police can’t simply enter your home or business on a hunch and without a search warrant describing what they’re looking for.
Maybe Feinstein doesn’t care for the part that protects us from self-incrimination, or that ensures prisoners are treated fairly and not subject to – what does the Constitution say? – “cruel and unusual punishment.” Perhaps she no longer cares for the portion of the Constitution that guarantees us a right to fair trial? (RELATED: America-Hating Liberal Rag The Atlantic Now Publishing Anti-Constitution Propaganda To Accelerate Destruction Of America)
As for her statements regarding slavery, women’s rights and segregation, those no longer exist because the founders designed the Constitution in a way that future generations would be able to address societal issues like the very ones she mentioned.
It’s simplistic and sophomoric to suggest that previous generations of Americans somehow changed the Constitution to adapt it to the times. Slavery was abolished via the amendment process; laws were passed by Congress to address other societal issues; federal bureaucracies were established by law to fulfill needed functions of government as they were required.
And so on. Feinstein makes it sound as though the Constitution, as originally written, is no longer effective at addressing societal issues. But she’s clearly wrong.
Furthermore, the Constitution protects Americans from tyranny; without its protections and guarantees, who among us seriously believes that at some point an authoritarian “leader” would not have risen to power?
Feinstein’s belief that Supreme Court justices ought to ignore the Constitution as it was written is really rooted in her belief that justices ought to be able to impose their own political viewpoint on cases. Gorsuch doesn’t believe that, and that’s why she and other Democrats want to torpedo his nomination, despite his obvious qualifications as someone the founders would approve of.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.