The purpose of the Constitution is to defend the individual and his or her liberty and create a government that supports that. The phrase, “living and breathing Constitution”, is always promoted by progressives. An activist court that upheld Plessy vs. Ferguson believed in a living and breathing Constitution, so did FDR with the internment of Japanese Americans and the court that upheld the Roe vs Wade decision. You want judges to apply the facts, not a living and breathing ideology. Having an originalist interpretation of the Constitution like Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with supporting slavery, or being anti woman. ~ MLS, 3/20/17
Nevertheless, it's remains refreshing to clearly observe throughout this process their honest preference for judicial oligarchy (for the breadth of it leaning leftward, that is), as well as an abundant disdain for Americanism, constitutionality and the Rule of Law in general, in their own words! (H/t: TheDailyWire)
Related link: Leahy Tells Gorsuch: ‘Originalism…Remains Outside Mainstream’“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. 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.”
At no point did Feinstein articulate constitutionally codified rights as timeless. Also ignored were legal options for change via constitutional amendment or the passage of constitutionally-compatible legislation.
Leahy described originalism as a judicial philosophy “outside the mainstream” or contemporary jurisprudence
“Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. It’s the approach taken by jurists such as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, or former Judge Bork. While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of modern constitutional jurisprudence. It’s been twenty-five years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we’ve seen from Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and Judge Gorsuch’s own record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and becomes an agenda.”
Feinstein, Leahy, and other Senate Democrats pushed Marxist themes of class warfare thoughout their monologues, framing the Supreme Court's primary role as being an avenue through which wealthy, powerful and elite individuals are to be punished for oppressing the proletariat.
Let's look at the word and its definition more closely:
In rejecting originalism, it's little doubt that they reject our founding, but unmistakable is their rejection of our Framers' clear intent for both then-present citizens and future generations ("to ourselves and our Posterity"). Their unrelenting pursuit of a 'living and breathing' redefining ultimately culminates in their desire for unlimited power (i.e., 'Rule of Men'), and if ever fully achieved, would spell the end for the Rule of Law. Tyranny much?
"Therefore, he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire." ~ Aristotle (384-322 BC), “Politics.”
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ~ James Madison (1788), "The Federalist No. 51"
Related link: The Originalist Perspective
ADDENDUM: A masterful rebuttal from Sen. Cruz addressing the Dem derangement...
"The voters had a direct choice. The voters understood the twenty-one men and women from whom the President would pick. And they had a very different vision of a Supreme Court justice that was put forth by Hillary Clinton. And in November, the People spoke. In what was essentially a referendum on the kind of justice that should replace Justice Scalia, the People chose originalism, textualism and rule of law. The People chose judicial humility. The People chose protecting the Bill of Rights, our free speech, our religious liberty, our Second Amendment, rather than handing policy making authority over to judges on the Supreme Court."
"A decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by this committee for the Federal Court of Appeals by a voice vote. He was likewise confirmed by the entire United States Senate by a voice vote without a single Democrat speaking a word of opposition. Not a word of opposition from minority leader Chuck Schumer. Not from Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. Not from Senators Feinstein, Leahy or Durbin, who still sit on this committee. Not even from Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Not a one of them spoke a word against Judge Gorsuch's nomination a decade ago. And the question this hearing poses to our Democratic colleagues is what has changed? What has changed, ten years ago Judge Gorsuch was so unobjectionable he didn't merit even a whisper of disapproval? In the decades since, he has had an objectively exemplary record. By any measure, he has shown himself to be even more worthy of the bipartisan support he received back then. Unfortunately, modern reality suggests that's probably not something my Democratic colleagues feel they can do in today's political environment. Many probably believe they have no choice but to try to manufacture attacks against Judge Gorsuch, whether they want to or not, just to preserve their own political future..."Sen. Cruz continued to dig into the baseless attacks (which can be heard above), but unquestionably put Dems on notice that the sideshow wasn’t gonna fly. Bravo, sir!
Related links: Ted Cruz: If criticizing judges is so awful, why are Dems gleefully trashing Neil Gorsuch?
Chuck Schumer Confirms the Gorsuch Hearings Are For Show
Democrats Plan to Filibuster to Thwart Gorsuch Nomination
Gorsuch and Precedent: Democrats Want It Both Ways
