Skip to comments.Hirono Makes Bizarre Argument Against Originalist Court Nominee
Posted on 10/31/2019 4:34:00 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
'You would not allow women and blacks to vote because that was not in the Constitution when it was ratified'
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) attacked a judicial nominee Wednesday, charging that he would rule against suffrage for blacks and women if a hypothetical U.S. Constitution banned them from voting.
Hirono took issue with Trump judicial nominee Lawrence VanDyke's statement that he would "look to the Constitution" when considering whether laws were constitutional. She said during a Judiciary Committee hearing such an approach would threaten the voting rights of minorities and women if the Constitution had not already been changed to ensure voting rights for minorities and women.
"You testified that you would look to the Constitution and what was meant in the Constitution at the time that it took effect, with enactment, ratification, whatever," Hirono said. "This was back in 1789, when blacks couldn't vote and women couldn't vote. So if the Constitution had not been amended to let women and blacks vote, you would interpret the Constitution as not allowing these groups to vote?"
"Senator, the Constitution has been amended, and I'm thankful it has been amended," VanDyke said. The 15th Amendment banned states from denying the right to vote on the basis of race in 1870, while the 19th Amendment did the same on the basis of sex in 1919.
VanDyke is a judicial conservative who advocates for "originalism," the legal philosophy that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with how its words would have been understood at the time of its writing.
"If the Constitution had not been amended and you're applying the Constitution as it was enacted, 1789, the Constitution had not been amended to allow women and blacks to vote. By originalism, you would have to interpret the Constitution as not allowing these groups to vote. Isn't that right?" Hirono said.
"Senator, I believe that we have a system of separation of powers," VanDyke replied. "I believe that my job as a judge is to apply the law, not to make policy decisions. And I'm very thankful that the Constitution was amended, I think that was the right process to do it."
"Yes, but you know what, the point I'm making, of course, which you're trying to get around, is that originalism means that you would interpret Constitution at the time of its enactment, and you would not allow women and blacks to vote because that was not in the Constitution when it was ratified in 1789," Hirono said.
Hirono was incorrect to claim the Constitution as originally enacted did "not allow" women and blacks to vote; it was silent on the matter. Several states allowed free blacks and women to vote before the passage of the 15th and 19th Amendments mandated such policies in every state.
Is she saying because I’m white I have less rights?
Amending the constitution is too difficult....it is far easier to implement your agenda via judicial activism....as long as you support the right causes. Otherwise, you are horrible.
Progressive women...do they actually understand anything?
The Democrats crave the abolition of the Constitution and individual freedom.
She is setting up the argument that people here illegally should have the right to vote, even if the constitution does not allow it directly. “It is the right thing to do...” would be the cry. One of the issues in the democratically controlled states is the fact that they do not ask if a person is here legally for a driver’s license and then may use that to vote, without question. States that have problems with their driver’s licenses as ID for flying as the fed requires that for flying but many states are not in compliance and require an enhanced ID are the states to suspect.
An amendment to the Constitution make it PART of the Constitution.
Therefore, the originalist intent also applies to the amendment.
The Bill of Rights didn’t amend the Constitution until 1791.
Does she believe he’s only going to follow the Constitution from 1789-90?
She really is a piece of work. You gotta see the video. The written words convey her message, but the video puts in context the truly hateful and uncivilized nature of this person. Such a nasty, awful person.
If dumbness were dollars, she’d be the richest person in the universe.
A little knowledge ca be a very dangerous thing.
Hateful, vile, petty and angry. Pity her poor spouse if she is married.
The US Constitution, when ratified, said nothing about white men voting either. In fact, nothing about race or sex was mentioned.
I love Alexander Pope.
A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring...
And it is so true. Get all the facts, not like the Left which gets one piece of information and runs around with its hair on fire...a La Adam Schitt.
Logic, reason, history, these are things that only white men understand I suppose.
If Hirono wants illegals to vote, then start an Amendment process and see what America has to say. Otherwise, she should just shut her piehole. I truly believe every person who thinks like her should be locked up for encouraging crime. That would be no different than if I encouraged a guy to kill another guy.....we would both be in jail and rightly so. Same rules should apply.
She wishes that Japan won the war and took Hawaii
The Left hate the Constitution because it places limits on government power.
They think limits on government power are immoral.
Crazie Hirono just reads whatever he staff writes and puts in front of her.
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.