Feinstein’s opening statement in Barrett hearings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy my stupidity and appetite for embarassing myself, has no limits

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS

i have no problem with scotus striking down anything that’s unconstitutional, regardless of whether that something happens to be popular with liberals or
conservatives.

if enough people want to do something that’s unconstitutional, we can change the constitution. i don’t want us ignoring the parts of the constitution we don’t happen
to like.

where is the hypocrisy there?

not giving garland a vote was entirely about the constitution. it was about preventing the court from having yet another activist who thinks his job as a judge is to implement policy they happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device