Constitutional scholar Franken.
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.
He found all that in the Constitution? Was he drunk?
I would not trust Franken to read what has been written on public bathroom walls.
Looks like his MSM mediot buddies are pushing him as their last grasping hope in the 2020 election.
Can you imagine Trump debating this pos even if Franken has the questions before the debate.
The Dems are well-practiced at re-defining every word that may prove them to be either fools or tyrants. Plain everyday language, that needs no interpretation, is anathema to them. That is the only explanation for the court decisions that have ruled that the President has no right to do what black letter law requires him to do.
Dear A Hole Senator, please explain what the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed” means.
Once you figure that out, we can discuss your confusion about the rest of the Constitution.
People who read the second amendment and say that it “obviousy” restricts firearm ownership to those who are in the national guard cannot be expected to understand that two plus two equal four, let alone the constitution.
On Fakebook last night I had a short so called discussion with a Liberal (friend of a friend).
He accused President Trump of shredding the Constitution worse than Nixon did.
When I asked him to provide examples his allegations the response was, don’t you read the Newspapers?
My response was, so you don’t have anything to back up what you said. I then explained I don’t swallow Propaganda from so called Journalists who are 95+ Liberal Democrats the same way he wouldn’t if they happened to be 95%+ Conservative Republicans.
I then told him to move the discussion forward to the inevitable point where he calls me a Nazi and stop wasting my time.
For that, I was accused of cornering the Tin Foil Market.
Senator Franken, if you were honest you would admit
that Judge Scalia was not hostile to women’s reproductive
rights. Rather, he had doubts about abortion.
The same “democratic” party that formed the KKK now wants to have black night riders on motorcycles lynching white people while pretending that the KKK was run by the GOP. It really is very strange, to say the least.
“the document he revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to defend.”
Al, that’s because it was written in cursive.
Constitutional scholar Franken.
“I prefer a constitution that wouldn’t nurture such divisions in the first place.”
I’m curious, what is there about the constitution, the REAL constitution, not the imaginings of liberals, that you see as nurturing divisions?
“One doesn’t just change the terms of a contract without following the rules.”
Liberals see it differently, in their view the constitution says what they believe, the actual wording exists only for them to misinterpret in any way they please while any part that agrees with their ideas is cast in stone and can never be tampered with...unless the liberals change their mind of course. That is why they hate Scalia.
Franken scoops his brains from used diapers. He is totally unqualified to make any remarks about the Constitution. I doubt if he can even spell the word. Shame on the people who voted him in over and over. Their brains are composed of the same brown matter.
Butt of course, I understand he received his deep misunderstanding and superficial care of the Constitution from none other than the fudgepacker in chief and constitutional profaner obamaramadingdong.
Franken... STUPIDITY on DISPLAY.
“Shall Not Be Infringed” means to Al Franken that the right shall be confined to the National Guard or law enforcement.
Only a bonehead liberal could conclude that being opposed to using abortion to terminate a pregnancy because the woman simply does not want to reproduce and for no other reason equals opposition to women’s reproductive rights. Let’s see, if I OPPOSE destroying automobiles then I am in opposition to the right to own and drive an automobile? Does that sound about right?
Is this the former comedian who stole the vote from the incumbent and became Senator by “finding” 300 votes, all for him, in the trunk of a car?
SNL Fools & SNL Faces; always seen in public places.
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.