The talks between Democrats and Republicans to avert the nuclear option in appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court fell apart Wednesday because Democrats are demanding another candidate, one that leans left. It’s a good time to remember the words of Fauxahontas when she spoke to the issue four years ago.
The senator from Massachusetts thought evaporating the nuclear option was a good idea back in 2013 when Republicans were filibustering radical leftist judges who were put up for nomination.
She said the three radicals at the time were “impressive people” and the Republican filibuster was nothing more than “naked attempts to nullify the results of the last Presidential election, to force us to govern as if President Obama hadn’t won the 2012 election.”
She insisted that “if Republicans continue to filibuster these highly qualified nominees for no reason, other than to nullify the President’s Constitutional authority, then Senators not only have the right to change the filibuster rules, Senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules.”
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
The suddenly Constitution-loving socialist said, “We cannot turn our backs on the Constitution.”
Well, Donald Trump won the election, elections have consequences, and senators have the “duty to change the filibuster rules.” This might be the only time we agree with the fake Native-American from Massachusetts.
In November 2013, Barack Obama made it clear that he was remaking the courts and he was doing it with the most radical judges.
To give you an example. One of the judges was Nina Pollard, a radical feminist.
She is seen by colleagues who have worked with her as the most left-wing appointee to the court in the history of the Republic. She sees the court as a place to legislate, contrary to our constitutional requirements.
One of her ideas is that federal judges should require egalitarian sex education.
Egalitarian sex education is her radical feminist view of what a sex education program must look like and she has stated that judges must mandate this type of education. She believes she has the right to inflict it on everyone.
She declared abstinence-only sex education is unconstitutional.
She is opposed to ultrasound because of its “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”
On her support for abortion, she says: it is necessary to help to “free[] women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” She also contends that men and women who oppose government mandates on employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception “reinforce[] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
Hopefully, she’s not breeding.
One colleague said she will “twist constitutional doctrine to suit the liberal cause du jour.”
Prior to a decision in the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church v. EEOC case, she wrote that the position of the defendant church represents “a substantial threat to the American rule of law.”
In that case, the SCOTUS, by a vote of 9-0, found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches under the anti-employment discrimination laws, because churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference.
The litigants wanted to prevent the churches from firing people they find unsuitable. Pillard sees this as a threat. She wants the government to be able to determine who churches can or cannot fire.
The woman is out to lunch. These are the people Obama nominated. Republicans picked a man who swears to follow the letter of the law. Big difference.
