Feinstein very concerned.

[Tahuyaman]

She's concerned that a nominee for the Supreme Court respects the principles laid out in the US Constitition.


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offered her interpretation of the Constitution at Monday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. In her opening remarks, the Democratic senator said she was deeply troubled by the nominee’s identifying himself as a constitutional “originalist.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/03/20/grassley-tells-gorsuch-not-to-worry-about-dems-recycled-attacks-n2301551



She's also concerned that he's a strict constructionist.

Whats next?

[Subdermal]

All anti-Americans would be concerned about such a thing.

[Common]

The democrats will drag this out as long as they can and try every dirty deal to stop the nominee. Thats what they do.

[jimmyz]

Justice Ruth Ginsburg denigrated our Constitution a ways back. Can you imagine a sitting SCOTUS judge saying that publicly. We live in strange times.

[patrickt]

Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and as such she hates the Constitution. She wants to pretend it's a living document and clearly states that abortion is a right and free speech isn't. She agrees with Barack Obama that it's just a piece of parchment.

[Tahuyaman]

It's hard to imagine that we have actually come to a place where respect for the constitution and the method required to amend it are considered "issues of concern" for a US Senator.

[Tahuyaman]

The democrats will drag this out as long as they can and try every dirty deal to stop the nominee. Thats what they do.

That strategy may come back to haunt them.

[Mini Me]

Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and as such she hates the Constitution. She wants to pretend it's a living document and clearly states that abortion is a right and free speech isn't. She agrees with Barack Obama that it's just a piece of parchment.
WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!

[Crepitus]

Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and as such she hates the Constitution. She wants to pretend it's a living document and clearly states that abortion is a right and free speech isn't. She agrees with Barack Obama that it's just a piece of parchment.

Liberals BTW do not hate the constitution, that's your team.

Conservatives hate the 1st amendment, it keeps them from discriminating against people they don't like.

They hate the 14th amendment because it grants birthright citizenship and let more brown people into their country.

They hate the 16th amendment because it grants Congress the power to collect income tax.

They hate the 17th, they want the states to pick senators, not the people.

A decent portion of the evangelicals want to repeal the 21st so the 18th will be back in effect. Prohibition baby!

They want religion in public schools, and they are likely to get it now.

In fact, the only portion of the Constitution that I see conservatives supporting without fail across the board is the 2nd.

[texan]

I am shocked that she is concerned.

[Tahuyaman]

WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!



Actually, Bush never said that. But don't let reality change your view.

[decedent]

Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

[Cletus]

Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so.

Yeah, the words and writings of the Framers themselves.

Real flimsy evidence.


In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.

Scalia wasn't perfect, but he was probably the finest jurist to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

[decedent]

Yeah, the words and writings of the Framers themselves.

Real flimsy evidence.


Where did the Framers write that corporations have rights that people have? They didn't, of course, but Scalia decided what their opinion was. It happened to be the same opinion he had. What an amazing coincidence!



Scalia wasn't perfect, but he was probably the finest jurist to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

Speaking of predictable....

[Cletus]

Where did the Framers write that corporations have rights that people have? They didn't, of course, but Scalia decided what their opinion was. It happened to be the same opinion he had. What an amazing coincidence!

You don't even know what Citizens United affirmed, do you?

Scalia had 30 years on the Supreme Court and all you can do is focus on one case you don't even understand.

Hilarious... and predicable.

[KathyS]

Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

I agree with you about Citizens United.

[FindersKeepers]

Justice Ruth Ginsburg denigrated our Constitution a ways back. Can you imagine a sitting SCOTUS judge saying that publicly. We live in strange times.

We certainly do -- but they are interesting times, no?

[Peter1469]

WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!



Snopes, if you give that website any credibility, says that is false.

[Peter1469]

The 14th doesn't grant birthright citizenship.

Can you cite to any SCOTUS case on point?

The 14th focuses on protecting the newly freed slaves.


Liberals BTW do not hate the constitution, that's your team.

Conservatives hate the 1st amendment, it keeps them from discriminating against people they don't like.

They hate the 14th amendment because it grants birthright citizenship and let more brown people into their country.

They hate the 16th amendment because it grants Congress the power to collect income tax.

They hate the 17th, they want the states to pick senators, not the people.

A decent portion of the evangelicals want to repeal the 21st so the 18th will be back in effect. Prohibition baby!

They want religion in public schools, and they are likely to get it now.

In fact, the only portion of the Constitution that I see conservatives supporting without fail across the board is the 2nd.

[Peter1469]

That is a silly distortion of what originalism is.


Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

[patrickt]

WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!


I do love it when someone puts their stupidity in bold for the world to see.
https://youtu.be/3l2Qfqs10BQ

As for your bullshit?
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

[Crepitus]

The 14th doesn't grant birthright citizenship.

Can you cite to any SCOTUS case on point?

The 14th focuses on protecting the newly freed slaves.

Thank you for making my point.

[resister]

I do love it when someone puts their stupidity in bold for the world to see.
https://youtu.be/3l2Qfqs10BQ

As for your bullshit?
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/
:applause:

[AeonPax]

I do love it when someone puts their stupidity in bold for the world to see. As for your bullshit? http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

I think you are mistaken. He was using the constitution as an analogy. A metaphor when considering that "we the people" give meaning to that document [constitution], which in context to the speech, was proper and grammatically correct. He did not mean it "literally."

[Subdermal]

I think you are mistaken. He was using the constitution as an analogy. A metaphor when considering that "we the people" give meaning to that document [constitution], which in context to the speech, was proper and grammatically correct. He did not mean it "literally."

The point of patrickt's post isn't to quibble on the context of Obama's statement. It is to illustrate the silliness of the leftist meme - the commonly accepted and believed leftist meme - that Bush uttered something, and Obama did not.

Obviously, the opposite is true. Regardless of context.

[patrickt]

Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

Not nearly as ridiculous as finding a right to an abortion in the Constitution and Scalia was right. Corporations have certain rights and responsibilities of a person.

I understand your problem in that you hate anyone funding a political party that isn't the Democrat Party or even further left.

[patrickt]

I think you are mistaken. He was using the constitution as an analogy. A metaphor when considering that "we the people" give meaning to that document [constitution], which in context to the speech, was proper and grammatically correct. He did not mean it "literally."
No, I believe you are mistaken. If you're considering context, remember that Barack Obama gave lectures in the University of Chicago on what's wrong with the Constitution. Remember that Democrats want to believe the Constitution is a living document and when the framers said, "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" that the framers clearly didn't mean hate speech or rude speech or microaggressions or politically incorrect speech.

And, when Obama says it's just a piece of parchment and what matters is what Democrats want to do, that's exactly what he means.

[MisterVeritis]

I think you are mistaken. He was using the constitution as an analogy. A metaphor when considering that "we the people" give meaning to that document [constitution], which in context to the speech, was proper and grammatically correct. He did not mean it "literally."
If you continue to listen to the next 30 seconds he says the Constitution has no power other than what we give it by our decisions, our choices, and our alliances. In other words, the Constitution means what we want it to from moment to moment. President Obama is no Constitutional defender.

[patrickt]

I make a statement about a comment from Barack Obama. A leftists says not only did Obama never say it but George Bush did. When that fails we have that taken in context Barack Obama was not denigrating the Constitution. That failed, too.

Have you ever wondered why the left hasn't amended the Constitution to legalize abortion at will, ban all firearms from citizens, do away with the First Amendment, and give us their dream of a dictator? Because the Constitution, that "just a piece of parchment" stops them. That's what the king hates, that's what Democrats hate, and that's why the left has to do away with the Constitution by force.

[MisterVeritis]

Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.Jan 21, 2010"Do you believe the federal government should have the power to determine what is and what is not political speech?

[AeonPax]

The point of @patrickt (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=348)'s post isn't to quibble on the context of Obama's statement. It is to illustrate the silliness of the leftist meme - the commonly accepted and believed leftist meme - that Bush uttered something, and Obama did not. Obviously, the opposite is true. Regardless of context.
`
That's one way to look at it, but I just don't agree. I'll leave it at that.

[nathanbforrest45]

WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!




Once again the left proves themselves to be idiots.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

[Captain Obvious]

Feinstein wanted someone who hates our (becoming great again) nation and who hates the constitution.

[decedent]

You don't even know what Citizens United affirmed, do you?

Scalia had 30 years on the Supreme Court and all you can do is focus on one case you don't even understand.


Like I said, that decision gave rights to corporations because people had the same rights. Granting the right of free speech to corporations dilutes that right for citizens. Corporations aren't citizens any more than undocumented immigrants are citizens.



That is a silly distortion of what originalism is.


Feel free to educate us. It's only fair to warn you that it may surpass your one-sentence reply limit.

[Tahuyaman]

Hard core liberals go into panic mode when they are confronted with the reality of a genuine constitutionalist being selected for the Supreme Court. They are even more panicked when that Justice says that their job is to interpret law, not write law.

[MMC]

Senator Feinstein Embarrasses Herself By Accusing Gorsuch of Not Fighting For The Little Guy.....



Democrat Senator and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein attempted to corner Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch as a corporate sympathizer Tuesday during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. It did not go well for her as Gorsuch politely shot back with a list of cases in which he fought for the "little guy" throughout his career.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KUKO5DsExI


Shoshana Weissmann
✔ @senatorshoshana Oh FFS @SenFeinstein (https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein) the whole point is that Gorsuch isn't "for" anyone - not the corporations nor little guy. He's "for" the Constitution
9:34 AM - 21 Mar 2017 (https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/844195405499961346) .....snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/21/feinstein-embarrasses-herself-by-accusing-gorsuch-of-not-fighting-for-the-little-guy-n2302064


http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif

[Tahuyaman]

When one is on the Senate Judiciary Committee and one is questioning a quality nominee for the Supreme Court, it will be obvious quite quickly if the questioner is either a partisan hack, ignorant or both.

[MMC]

Looks like Durbin fills both. The Demos just made themselves look like fools. They wont be able to stop Gorsuch after their stunts today.



This may not be quite as satisfying as Gorsuch's response to Sen. Feinstein's "why don't you ever side with the little guy?" flop, but it's pretty close. When Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin raised this exceedingly weak criticism of Gorsuch -- which was leveled by a former student who also just so happens to be a former professional Democrat (a relevant fact omitted by New York Magazine and NPR) -- the Supreme Court nominee was ready. Rather than alluding to the accuser's partisanship or objecting to the distortion, he calmly explained the context of the supposedly 'problematic' discussion at issue. He happily accepted Durbin's nothing-burger and feasted, seizing the non-controversy to present himself as a defender of women in the workplace. Impressive:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njoZE514llk


Gorsuch is putting on a clinic, and the Trump administration's team is thus far offering an exquisitely-executed textbook lesson in how to get somebody confirmed. The media's verdict (http://arsquared.org/what-they-are-saying-about-judge-gorsuch-vol/) on the performance is virtually unanimous, even on MSNBC and CNN:


John Harwood
✔ @JohnJHarwood there is no chance under the sun that Democrats defeat Gorsuch nomination. he makes extremely strong case for himself
9:37 AM - 21 Mar 2017 (https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/844196175523856384) .....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/03/21/video-after-durbin-raises-sexism-smear-gorsuch-totally-dismantles-it-n2302162

[patrickt]

Senator Feinstein Embarrasses Herself By Accusing Gorsuch of Not Fighting For The Little Guy.....



Democrat Senator and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein attempted to corner Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch as a corporate sympathizer Tuesday during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. It did not go well for her as Gorsuch politely shot back with a list of cases in which he fought for the "little guy" throughout his career.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KUKO5DsExI


Shoshana Weissmann
✔ @senatorshoshana Oh FFS @SenFeinstein (https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein) the whole point is that Gorsuch isn't "for" anyone - not the corporations nor little guy. He's "for" the Constitution
9:34 AM - 21 Mar 2017 (https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/844195405499961346) .....snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/21/feinstein-embarrasses-herself-by-accusing-gorsuch-of-not-fighting-for-the-little-guy-n2302064


http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif

Embarrassment requires a sense of shame which requires a sense of responsibility. Democrats have no sense of responsibility and therefore never feel shame or embarrassment so Sen. Feinstein is immune.

[Tahuyaman]

Everyone who questioned his qualifications or fitness for the position looked like a fool. They have no choice now but to vote for his confirmation. They will expose themselves as simply partisan hacks if they don't.

Feinstein looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights. Durban just got punked, but respectfully punked.

[Tahuyaman]

I am shocked that she is concerned.


I just find find it odd that she would go public with the notion that she is "concerned" that a person is unfit for the Supreme Court becasue he believes in fulfilling his duties in the way he's required.

[Tahuyaman]

What's next? Is she going to be equally concerned if a president says that he believes that he should not have the power of a King or dictator?

[Peter1469]

You could care less what it is.


Like I said, that decision gave rights to corporations because people had the same rights. Granting the right of free speech to corporations dilutes that right for citizens. Corporations aren't citizens any more than undocumented immigrants are citizens.





Feel free to educate us. It's only fair to warn you that it may surpass your one-sentence reply limit.

[Tahuyaman]

He just knows what's spoon fed to him by like minded leftists.

[del]

You could care less what it is.
got nothing, huh?

[Dr. Who]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.

[Tahuyaman]

got nothing, huh?


Look who's talking.

[Tahuyaman]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.


Are you with Feinstein and highly concerned that Gorsuch is an originalist and constitutional constructionist?

would you rather see a justice who believes in the concept of judicial activism and believes it's their job to create or re-write law?

Do you believe in disregarding the constitution when it seems convenient to do so?

[decedent]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.

Great post. Thanks for this.


While I don't see globalism as a significant threat, I agree that granting citizen rights to corporations is dangerous.

[del]

Look who's talking.
i'm used to you having nothing.

[Tahuyaman]

Evidently reading comprehension is a weakness with you.

[Dr. Who]

Are you with Feinstein and highly concerned that Gorsuch is an originalist and constitutional constructionist?

would you rather see a justice who believes in the concept of judicial activism and believes it's their job to create or re-write law?

Do you believe in disregarding the constitution when it seems convenient to do so?
No, I'm more concerned that he is a tool of globalist corporations and the establishment. It would seem that disregard for the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, Gorsuch helped Senator Lindsey Graham draft the the Detainee Treatment Act which attempted to strip federal courts of any jurisdiction over the detainees. Pretty much all of his decisions favor big business, the conservative christian right and state government overstep. He even found for the police when they handcuffed and arrested a 13-year-old for disturbing a gym class in New Mexico by burping and laughing. He's not a constitutionalist, he's an authoritarian.

[Dr. Who]

Great post. Thanks for this.


While I don't see globalism as a significant threat, I agree that granting citizen rights to corporations is dangerous.
You would see globalism as a significant threat if you drill down into their relationship with electoral candidates and the obligations that their campaign financing imposes. It really results in the interests of nonelected entities determining the actions of government because they own the representatives in government.

[Cletus]

Like I said, that decision gave rights to corporations because people had the same rights. Granting the right of free speech to corporations dilutes that right for citizens. Corporations aren't citizens any more than undocumented immigrants are citizens.

I was correct. You don't understand it.

[Crepitus]

Not nearly as ridiculous as finding a right to an abortion in the Constitution and Scalia was right. Corporations have certain rights and responsibilities of a person.

I understand your problem in that you hate anyone funding a political party that isn't the Democrat Party or even further left.

Citizens United is hands down the worst ruling to come out of the SCOTUS in 50 years. If it's so "constitutional" and "original" why did it take them over 200 years to realize it?

[Tahuyaman]

The hard partisan types sure aren't unwilling to expose themselves.


They don't want a judge who interprets law, they want a liberal judge who wants to write and re-write law regardless of the constitution.


Liberals want the courts politicized as long as the judges hold liberal views.

[MMC]

Embarrassment requires a sense of shame which requires a sense of responsibility. Democrats have no sense of responsibility and therefore never feel shame or embarrassment so Sen. Feinstein is immune.
Exactly.....and Durbin doubles down on that. Demos are Deviates. Which that is their strong point. The best they will ever be.

[NapRover]

I'm surprised how she and many others, with straight faces, can ask the nominee questions that would reveal how he might rule on a potential case. Especially after counseling the Obama nominees to refrain from doing that. And complaining about Garland, while taking the same position themselves on potential late-term SCOTUS nominees from Bush. Shameful.

[Tahuyaman]

It does seem strange that they ask him how he would rule on a case he hasn't yet heard. Then they can claim to be troubled by the fact that he is reluctant to say how he would rule on a case he hasn't heard.


I guess that's because liberals generally don't need to know the facts of the matter before they make up their mind.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm surprised how she and many others, with straight faces, can ask the nominee questions that would reveal how he might rule on a potential case. Especially after counseling the Obama nominees to refrain from doing that. And complaining about Garland, while taking the same position themselves on potential late-term SCOTUS nominees from Bush. Shameful.


I was impressed with Gorsuch because he answered those dumb questions respectfully with a straight face.

[MisterVeritis]

No, I'm more concerned that he is a tool of globalist corporations and the establishment. It would seem that disregard for the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, Gorsuch helped Senator Lindsey Graham draft the the Detainee Treatment Act which attempted to strip federal courts of any jurisdiction over the detainees. Pretty much all of his decisions favor big business, the conservative christian right and state government overstep. He even found for the police when they handcuffed and arrested a 13-year-old for disturbing a gym class in New Mexico by burping and laughing. He's not a constitutionalist, he's an authoritarian.
The Congress should exercise its Constitutional powers to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction.

[Tahuyaman]

No, I'm more concerned that he is a tool of globalist corporations and the establishment. It would seem that disregard for the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, Gorsuch helped Senator Lindsey Graham draft the the Detainee Treatment Act which attempted to strip federal courts of any jurisdiction over the detainees. Pretty much all of his decisions favor big business, the conservative christian right and state government overstep. He even found for the police when they handcuffed and arrested a 13-year-old for disturbing a gym class in New Mexico by burping and laughing. He's not a constitutionalist, he's an authoritarian.

As he clearly demonstrated yesterday, many of his decisions went against big business and or globalist corporations. Feinstein looked like a fool when he was telling her of the many such specific cases. Claiming that "pretty much all" of his decision went in favor of the big corporations is false.

Here's a news flash for you. Sometimes the big guy should win and does. Sometimes the little fella should win and does.