Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hirono Makes Bizarre Argument Against Originalist Court Nominee - "You would not allow women and blacks to vote because that was not in the Constitution when it was ratified"
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Nov 3, 2019, 3:59:11 AM11/3/19
to
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.
https://youtu.be/HO4EY0sO5Gs
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
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.
https://youtu.be/HO4EY0sO5Gs
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 3, 2019, 9:02:51 AM11/3/19
to
in it so that it can be changed. Meaning that the Judiciary Need NOT
change the constitution by interpretation since the Legislature by means
of ratifying amendments is obliged to do it by States ratifying
amendments. No where does the Constitution suggest that the Judiciary
can change or otherwise modify the Constitution.... the most the
Judiciary can do is to reject or accept the wording in the Constitution
or in laws text such as Treaties or Amendments which violate the
Constitution as it exists at that moment in time. Looking back to what
was legal or saying that Democrats can change the Constitution without
an amendment, is pure fantasy.
Being as the Constitution is able to be updated by the people we don't
need the Judiciary to interfere.
--
That's Karma
Is it strange that Hillary has been connected with 3 of the 4
"impeachment" attempts that have happened in the last 250 years?
NoBody
Nov 3, 2019, 9:06:35 AM11/3/19
to
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:05:03 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>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?"
Hirono is an idiot who has probably never read the Constitution.
wrote:
>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?"
Siri Cruise
Nov 3, 2019, 10:39:43 AM11/3/19
to
In article <7mntretq44pghc139...@4ax.com>,
Constitution? Is getting the job more important than integrity?
Oh, right: Republicans.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >"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?"
>
> Hirono is an idiot who has probably never read the Constitution.
Why couldn't VanDyke say he would refuse to be a judge under such a
> >"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?"
>
> Hirono is an idiot who has probably never read the Constitution.
Constitution? Is getting the job more important than integrity?
Oh, right: Republicans.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Lee
Nov 3, 2019, 11:55:12 AM11/3/19
to
is unconstitutional?
LOL!
Mr. Black
Nov 3, 2019, 12:15:48 PM11/3/19
to
Siri Cruise wrote
> Why couldn't VanDyke say he would refuse to be a judge under such a
> Constitution? Is getting the job more important than integrity?
>
>
> Oh, right: Republicans.
>
The Constitution says that black people and women are the property of white
Christian men, guns are for controlling the slaves and if you want
healthcare, do as our Framers did. A good bleeding and some Tincter of
Mercury cures everything and costs nothing.
There's no right to health care in the Constitution. The framers were busy
having a good bleeding and drinking tincture of mercury to cure them! All
while wearing wigs and stockings, like Gay old Men.
I bet that those slaves that the great Republican politician Thomas Jefferson
raped had health care.
> Why couldn't VanDyke say he would refuse to be a judge under such a
> Constitution? Is getting the job more important than integrity?
>
>
> Oh, right: Republicans.
>
Christian men, guns are for controlling the slaves and if you want
healthcare, do as our Framers did. A good bleeding and some Tincter of
Mercury cures everything and costs nothing.
There's no right to health care in the Constitution. The framers were busy
having a good bleeding and drinking tincture of mercury to cure them! All
while wearing wigs and stockings, like Gay old Men.
I bet that those slaves that the great Republican politician Thomas Jefferson
raped had health care.
0 new messages