Posted on 03/21/2017 6:40:07 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) questioned the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's understanding of the Constitution on Monday during the confirmation hearing for President Trump's nominee to the high court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Franken began his line of questioning to Gorsuch by discussing Trump's "litmus test" for his Supreme Court nominee.
"In fact, he openly discussed his litmus test. He said that he would ‘appoint judges very much in the mold of Scalia' during the final presidential debate," Franken said. "Then-candidate Trump said, ‘The justices I'm going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.'"
Franken then praised Scalia before taking a shot at his knowledge of the Constitution.
"Justice Scalia was a man of great conviction and, it should be said, a man of great humor," Franken said. "But Justice Scalia embraced a rigid view of our Constitution, a view blind to the equal dignity of LGBT people, and hostile to women's reproductive rights, and a view that often refused to acknowledge the lingering laws and policies that perpetuate the racial divide."
Franken acknowledged that nobody can dispute the late Scalia's love for the Constitution, but he went on to say "the document he revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to defend."
"It troubles me that at this critical juncture in our nation's history, at this moment when our country is so fixated on things that divide us from one another, that President Trump would pledge to appoint jurists whose views of our founding document seek to reinforce those divisions rather than bridge them," Franken added.
Scalia, who unexpectedly passed away last February, served on the Supreme Court for three decades. Prior to serving on the nation's highest court, Scalia was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
He was chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law from 1981 to 1982 and served as a senior figure in the Justice Department in the 1970s. The late Supreme Court justice previously was a professor at multiple top law schools and received his law degree from Harvard University.
Franken did not attend law school or practice law before entering the Senate in 2009.
Franken is a ADD, OCD, semi-retarded autistic moron compare to Scalia.
I keep waiting for some enterprising reporter to actually Quote the COnstitution as a question to these smug marxist liberals, just to Publicly Embarrass them and demonstrate their Moral Bankruptcy and plain stupidity.
Because nothing demonstrates “class” more than bashing a dead patriot, right Al? GEEEEEZ
Fake News. No legal argument presented. Just more liberal gaslighting clogging up FR.
Strike that compared to anyone Franken is is a ADD, OCD, semi-retarded autistic moron.
It’s sad to see Franken, an elected senator, have such a fundamentally poor understanding of the US Constitution and rule of law. Justice Scalia would have upheld any LGBT amendments that were lawfully passed per the constitutional amendment processes. What Scalia did not support was judicial barbarism, i.e. amending the constitution on the fly by appointing judges who were willing to shred it for political goals.
I prefer a constitution that wouldn’t nurture such divisions in the first place.
Except that Scalia would have supported abortion if an abortion amendment was legitimately passed. He would have been personally opposed—I think—but he would have stood for the rule of law. As I understand it, he saw the US Constitution as a legal contract between the people and government. One doesn’t just change the terms of a contract without following the rules. To do otherwise—even if the cause is just—tears apart the legal framework that holds diverse people together in a civil society.
“Franken-stupid” blathering on Scalia’s being an Originalist goes beyond asinine and into deeply deluded.
Nobody can squat like Al.
He’s a world champion squatter.
Needs correction, “Sen. Al Frankenturd (D., Minn.)”.
Tune in next week, when Al Franken corrects the erroneous football strategies of Bill Belichick.
Justice Scalia wouldn’t dirty his hands, so to speak, debating a less than half wit like Franken on anything? If Justice Scalia did school Franken on the Constitution, it’s likely that Franken would just not comprehend and walk away dumbly mumbling incoherent nothingness!?
FR is a forum where people can post their opinions on the current issues of the day. Franken's antics are quite relevant for discussion, as can be seen by the responses. On the contrary, it is NOT "fake news".
Why you would consider a fellow Freepers' posting of this issue as somehow "clogging" FR is something for which I have a strong disagreement.
I pay no attention to a person whose only claim to fame is he was a clown, a Court Jester below the level of Wamba the Fool.
I don’t remember Franken being funny at all.
Oh, yes.... Nothing better than an SNL writer who critiques a brilliant jurist. /s
“the document he revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to defend”
Then the document you have sworn to defend is a FAKE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.