Feinstein completely misrepresented and misstated this quote. She had Scalia saying something he did not. Gorsuch apparently has not studied Heller. Or, he would have pointed out her twist.
I watched Feinstein's embarrassing display of 25 years of Federal legislative "experience" and ignorant as I am about sicko politics,I wanted to respond eventually, but haven't had the time.
However, someone else did an amazing job of responding to all the non-sequiturs, subject changes and irrelevancies Feinstein managed to jam into the few minutes of her amazing "statement : "
Charles Brown:
"Sen. Feinstein has a lot to learn about history. The Salem witch trials were about 100 years before the Revolution. Also, the Constitution never called for slavery. The founding fathers tried to put a prohibition on slavery, but were stopped by the southern colonies who said that they would leave the Union before slavery was prohibited. They tried to make good on that threat about 60 years later and lost. She is correct in saying that the Constitution can be changed to reflect changes in society but she does not seem to understand the process. The Constitution can be amended by a three fourths vote of the states. This has been done several times. Where she errs is that it cannot be changed by judicial fiat no by executive order. She and other progressives have corrupted our law and the separation of powers between the three branches of government for too many years. We are trying to restore that balance now. Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Schumer, and many others of their ilk (not all are Democrats) are examples as to why we need term limits."
That is one comment of several insightful responses. The entire article responding to Feinstein's pitiful attempt to act as a senior "diplomat" can be found at...