|THE INCREDIBLE GENIUS OF DIANE FEINSTEIN 23 Mar. 2017||| Print ||
THE INCREDIBLE GENIUS OF DIANE FEINSTEIN
23 Mar. 2017
Dear Friends and Patriots,
If there was ever a showpiece for progressive ideology, it was the Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch these past two days. What a spectacle! Well, it was if you’re into hours of boring TV and also into the philosophy of American governance. The hearings were generally boring, but from the standpoint of philosophy, extraordinarily revealing. The star of the philosophic show wasn’t Judge Gorsuch, though; it was California’s Senator Diane Feinstein. Her commitment to progressive ideology was on full display. I’ll give you a couple of snippets of her remarks and one response from Judge Gorsuch, then tell you what I make of it all.
“I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. In 1789, the population of the United States was under four million. Today, we're 325 million and growing. At the time of our founding, African-Americans were enslaved. It was not so long after women had been burned at the stake for witchcraft, and the idea of an automobile, let alone the internet, was unfathomable. In fact, if we were to dogmatically adhere to originalist interpretations, then we would still have segregated schools, and bans on interracial marriage. Women wouldn’t be entitled to equal protection under the law, and government discrimination against LGBT Americans would be permitted. So I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an originalist and a strict constructionist.”
Senator Feinstein planted her flag with that statement. She declared her own beliefs in how government should view the Constitution. But, she wasn’t finished. Later in the hearing she elaborated with a statement that reveals the truly perverse outlook she and almost all progressives hold and propagate”
“Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling. In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. However, to do so would so would not only ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds.”
Yes, Tuesday was a fine day for Senator Feinstein to expound on her beliefs. Then, yesterday she questioned Judge Gorsuch and asked if his originalist notions didn’t conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This response of Gorsuch’s should put to rest the notion that he never gave a substantive reply. This one was extraordinarily substantive:
“It would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. The point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it — what a good judge always strives to do, and I think we all do — is strive to understand what the words on the page mean. Not import words that come from us, but apply what you, the people’s representative, the lawmakers, have done. And so when it comes to equal protection of the law, for example, it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. That’s what they wrote. And the original meaning of those words John Marshall Harlan captured in his dissent in Plessy. An equal protection of the laws doesn’t mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender — it means “equal.” And as I said yesterday I think that guarantee — equal protection of the law’s guarantee in the 14th Amendment, that it took a civil war for this country to win – is maybe the most radical guarantee in all of the constitution, and maybe in all of human history. It’s a fantastic thing, and that’s why it is chiseled in Vermont marble above the entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
I’m pretty sure that answer had Senator Feinstein fuming a bit. She was trying to paint the Judge as a hypocrite, but ended up getting a civics lecture instead.
Originalists continue to this day to reference the wording of Constitution and the explanations of the Federalist Papers in their determinations of Constitutional intent. They don’t believe we should interpret the Constitution within the context of social evolution for one simple reason – there are no bedrock principles at play in social evolution. How can there ever be any societal or legal stability, not to mention public trust, if something as amorphous as social evolution is used to judge laws that may remain on the books for decades or longer? Where is the logic of such an idea?
Everyone should know that Senator Feinstein is an ardent anti-gun proponent, even though she used to carry one herself. She was one of the first to jump on and adopt the “assault weapon” fallacy. Her logic is based on her “living” Constitution belief. In 1787 muskets and flintlock rifles were the dominant personal weapons and towns were protected by locally organized militias. Today we have modern police forces, state police, National Guard units and a standing army. To Feinstein those are good reasons to believe the intent of the Second Amendment is more than accommodated without individual citizens owning a gun. That’s her stance. The obvious truth is found in a single principle, one that has been ratified and upheld in law ever since the time of the Roman emperor Constantine. That’s the principle of self-defense. Every living human possesses the Natural Right to defend himself from harm. Senator Feinstein would have us all disarmed, without the independent means to protect ourselves or our property from harm. Her logic is flawed because it’s not based on principle, but on her and many other peoples’ personal beliefs and opinions.
Stay in the game, my friends. We have a long, hard road ahead. There will be no rest for the weary, just more and more challenges. We all need each other if we’re to prevail.