Feinstein Tries To Trip Up SC Nominee On 2nd Amen., His Answer CRUSHES Her Like A Dixie Cup

Several people have compared Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch with former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to draw a contrast between the two men on the Second Amendment, but was unable to do so.

Judge Gorsuch says, “its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Senator respectfully, its a matter of it being the law.”

Check it out:

67 COMMENTS

  1. Judge Gorsuch is correct. In his response he implies that judges do not make the law but follow the law as the constitution defines it.

    • Yes, the law doesn’t matter to them. How do you “feel” the law should be?

      Unless they’re the mindless bureaucrats that follow every letter of things to a T, despite common sense or reason. Those drones follow orders to the determent of everyone. But these elites, they want the law to be whatever they feel like making it and they want judges to agree with ruling like that, too. Just like the 9th Circus.

    • Their was no law recognizing gay marriage. There is a constitution recognizing freedom of religion. Yet here we are.

  2. For the first 140 years or so after the Bill of Rights’ enactment, everybody knew what the Second Amendment meant. Until the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 required registration of machine guns, anyone could just walk into a store and purchase his own personal Thompson gun without fuss.

    Get the picture? It took about a century and a half for some legal sharper to get up to the notion that there was “ambiguity” in the Second Amendment, or that that “ambiguity” allowed room for regulating or outlawing certain privately-owned weapons according to government decision.

    • Well, that Constitution is a flawed document, according to the liberals. So much of it doesn’t really fit with our “evolved” society. You know, the society that disrespects each other, murders by the score, aborts human life like it’s nothing, complains it doesn’t have a “safe space” when someone says something they disagree with. This modern, devolved society of coddled brats.

      Shall not be infringed is as UNambiguous as it gets.

    • “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in” were I believe her words when asked if she what she would do if she was able to ban guns.

  3. What Dianne Blind-Deaf&Dumbstein fails to understand is that at one time, Kentucky long rifles were military rifles, and they were not only available to the general public, but necessary to the defense of a country against the British. So should modern military rifles be legal to own by the general public, since we (read, “you”) may have to defend ourselves against the very government who restricts our ownership of such firearms, while they themselves may use the same to persecute. Enter the slanderers in 3… 2… 1…

    • There is absolutely NOTHING ambiguous about the Second Amendment. In fact, it’s one of the most succinct statements in the entire Constitution. There is no room for interpretation. It’s plain as day.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
      State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
      infringed.”

      The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed and is to keep a well regulated militia so defend the free state. Period.

  4. Schumer, Feinstein, and the rest of the ratpack only want to hear Gorsuch say that the law means what the ratpack wants it to say when it favors their causes.

  5. It’s always amusing when dimwits like Feinstein and the obnoxious Stuart Smalley try to match wits with a world class intellect like Gorsuch.

    • Not a fair fight… I hope the morons don’t require a change in the rules, allowing 51 votes for confirmation. It would only be confirmation of their low intellect and/or low regard for our country

  6. Wow, which is it? Miller allowed the ban because there was nobody to testify that the weapons in question were useful to the military.

    Now it’s the opposite! What a joke.

  7. A Supreme Court Justice is expected to be a jurist of high accomplishment and intellect. Senators are just mediocre people who stomped and clawed and lied their way into office. So now, these idiots get to interrogate a SCOTUS nominee who has more IQ than 3-4 of them put together. Something’s wrong with this system. I hope that in 2018 and 2020, Americans will clean house in the Congress and replace some of these fools with upstanding patriots and champions of liberty and prosperity who will support the President’s agenda to make America great again.

  8. To progressives, everything is political. A progressive mind can’t wrap itself around any thought that derives from a moral cant. …

  9. Wit and wisdom at their finest in Judge Gorsuch! The effectiveness of the law rests not in the judges’ affective view but on its objective finality.

  10. What these political people such as Feinstein never seem to understand is the founding fathers purposely wrote the second as short and succinct as possible so there words can never be misconstrued as to there intent and that intent was to guarantee the common citizen there right to be armed, to protect themselves no matter if it was against an animal, another person or our own government. They put no limit or restriction on who could bear arms. The founding fathers purposely put no limit as to the type of arms. Before you jump and say they didn’t have multiple projectile arms you would be wrong because they did. However the common citizens could not afford such costly arms. The founding fathers purposely framed the words of the 2nd amendment to preempt any future politicians or political groups from trying to change the intent or purpose of the 2nd amendment. They wanted to make absolutely certain it could never be altered or taken away by the government. If the government ever succeeded in altering or taking away the 2nd amendment we would be helpless against our government. That’s why they framed the 2nd amendment so succinctly!

  11. I love how she tries get “yes or no” answers from him, but when was the last time a politician answered “yes or no” to anything? Most of the time, their answers are so convoluted that they don’t even discuss what the question was about.

    • Has Obama ever given a yes or no answer? Come to think of it, has he ever given an answer less than 5 minutes long?

  12. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here|Find More|Find More Infos here|Here you will find 61127 more Infos|Infos on that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/21/feinstein-tries-trip-sc-nominee-2nd-amen-answer-crushes-like-dixie-cup/ […]

  13. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Read More Informations here|Here you can find 21642 additional Informations|Informations to that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/21/feinstein-tries-trip-sc-nominee-2nd-amen-answer-crushes-like-dixie-cup/ […]

  14. … [Trackback]

    […] There you can find 86377 additional Information on that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/21/feinstein-tries-trip-sc-nominee-2nd-amen-answer-crushes-like-dixie-cup/ […]

  15. … [Trackback]

    […] Here you can find 38237 more Information on that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/21/feinstein-tries-trip-sc-nominee-2nd-amen-answer-crushes-like-dixie-cup/ […]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here