Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Crime

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims the 1994 “assault weapons” ban lowered crime even though a Department of Justice report shows it had no impact on recorded figures. On August 20, 2019, Feinstein tweeted: “While the federal assault weapons ban was in effect (1994-2004), the number of gun massacres fell by 37% and the number of gun massacre deaths fell by 43% compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183% and gun massacre deaths by 239%.” She followed that tweet with a second that said, “It’s long past time to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before more lives are lost.” On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showing the federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime. The NIJ report was authored by University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper. And the Washington Times quoted Koper saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Exactly…  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former mayor of San Francisco, is infamous for pulling bs stats out of her butt to push her anti-gun narrative.  The actual facts say something completely different.  The ’94 ban, which since has expired, did nothing to reduce gun violence.  It was all political theater and bs.  Thanks to AWR Hawkins for this little piece.     🙂

GOP-doxxing suspect arrested; worked or interned for Feinstein, Jackson Lee, other Dems

A Democratic congressional intern was arrested Wednesday and accused of posting the personal information of at least one Republican senator during last week’s hearing about sexual assault claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, authorities said. U.S. Capitol Police said 27-year-old Jackson Cosko was charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry. Police added that the investigation was continuing and more charges could be filed. Senior congressional sources tell Fox News that Cosko most recently worked as an unpaid intern for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. He previously worked with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. He also worked or interned with the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as with at least one other unnamed lawmaker. A LinkedIn page with Cosko’s name on it describes him as a “Democratic Political Professional & Cybersecurity Graduate Student.” Jackson Lee’s office told Fox News that Cosko had only worked there for a couple of months, but has now been terminated. “It’s unfortunate,” Glenn Rushing, Jackson Lee’s chief of staff, told Fox News. Rushing added that the congresswoman’s office is “cooperating with law enforcement.” Hassan’s office has had two substantial personnel issues in recent months. Earlier this year, an intern for the senator shouted “Mr. President, f— you!” across the Capitol Rotunda at President Trump as he was being escorted into the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Hassan’s office declined to comment on Cosko’s arrest. Personal information of Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch was posted on their respective Wikipedia pages Thursday as the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Kavanaugh over allegations that he assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at a high school party in the early 1980s. All three have professed their belief that Kavanaugh is innocent of the claims brought against him by Ford, with Graham telling the federal judge “you’ve got nothing to apologize for” amid a fiery rant denouncing Democrats’ handling of the allegations. The intentional publication of the information was first caught by a Twitter bot that automatically tracks any changes made to Wikipedia entries from anyone located in the U.S. Congress and publicizes them on the social media site. The bot account later deleted the tweets because the edits contained personal information. According to the bot, whoever posted the information did so from a computer in the House of Representatives. The home addresses of the senators appeared to be correct, though the phone numbers didn’t appear to be entirely accurate. A “home” phone number listed for Graham appeared to direct callers to the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group. Sources tell Fox News that authorities are looking into the possibility that at least two other senators were doxxed. Fox News has also learned that Cosko was discovered by aides Tuesday night working on a computer in a Capitol Hill office that did not belong to Jackson Lee. He was arrested at his Washington home the following day. Capitol Hill security officials plan to scrub the computers in question.

Glad they caught this punk..  Crazy..

Thiessen: Democrats have their own foreign espionage problem

Imagine if it emerged that the Republican chairman of the House or Senate intelligence committee had a Russian spy working on their senate staff. Think it would cause a political firestorm? Well, this week we learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for 20 years, who was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver when she was in San Francisco, all while reporting to China’s Ministry of State Security through China’s San Francisco Consulate. The reaction of the mainstream media? Barely a peep. Feinstein acknowledged the infiltration, but downplayed its significance. “Five years ago the FBI informed me it had concerns that an administrative member of my California staff was potentially being sought out by the Chinese government to provide information” Feinstein said in statement — which means the breach took place while Feinstein was heading the intelligence committee. But, Feinstein insisted, “he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters” and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired — no big deal. But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. “It’s plenty serious,” one former top Justice Department official told me. “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.” A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if they had recruited the driver of a senior official like Feinstein. “We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices. If the driver drove for her for 20 years he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability.” “In short,” this officer says, “we would have had a field day.” It seems improbable that Feinstein never once discussed anything sensitive in her car over a period of years. But let’s assume that Feinstein was extraordinarily careful and never discussed any classified information in front of her driver or on any devices to which he had access. Even so, one former top intelligence official told me, “someone in that position could give an adversary a whole bunch on atmospherics and trends and attitudes which are from time to time far more important than the things we call secrets.” He added “It’s like [having access to her] unclassified emails.” (And we all know no one ever exposes classified information on unclassified emails). Washington is understandably focused on the threat from Russia. But according to FBI director Chris Wray, “China from a counterintelligence perspective represents the broadest, most pervasive, most threatening challenge we face as a country.” It was China, after all, which hacked the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, stealing the SF-86 security clearance forms of many thousands of executive branch employees in the most devastating cyberattack in the history of our country. Beijing has successfully recruited FBI agents and State Department employees as spies, and has used information from U.S. informants to kill dozens of CIA sources inside the regime. And now, we know they recruited a high value senate staffer who worked in immediate proximity to the head of the senate intelligence committee. Feinstein owes the country a detailed explanation of how she let a Chinese spy into her inner sanctum. And the media should give this security breach the same attention they would if it involved Russia and the Republicans.

Agreed!!  And well said, Marc!  AEI fellow Marc Thiessen is the author of that spot-on op/ed.  The next time you hear that hypocritical blow-heard, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spout off about so-called “Russian collusion” with the Trump administration or some other such as yet unsubstantiated nonsense, remember this story that CNN and MSNBC haven’t even covered yet!!  Total hypocrisy!!

Democrats Denounce Kavanaugh Process They Approved for Obama and Kagan

Democrats are protesting Sen. Chuck Grassley’s beginning Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court and the process for getting Kavanaugh documents, but recent history shows they have nothing to complain about, because they approved the very same process for the most recent nominee from a Democratic president. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley (R-IA) decided to go the extra mile to accommodate Democratic senators. He will begin Kavanaugh’s hearing 57 days after President Trump nominated him, as compared to 48, 49, and 48 days for Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch respectively—the three most recent nominees from both parties. Grassley also agreed to provide 900,000 pages of documents involving Kavanaugh’s government service, more than any nominee in history, and more than four times the number provided for recent nominees of either party—including Kagan (who had only 172,000 pages). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) considers that all-time high of 900,000 documents on President Trump’s nominee to be insufficient, and so is requesting numerous additional documents from the National Archives. But as The Hill’s Jordain Carney reported, Archivist David Ferriero informed Feinstein that both the Justice Department and the Archives’ general counsel, Gary Stern, have advised him that the Presidential Records Act authorizes only committee chairmen to request documents, not individual senators. Feinstein is crying foul at the archivist’s decision, despite the fact that Ferriero was appointed by President Obama. The Archives are not able to complete Grassley’s document request until late October due to its enormous size, but senators are determined to have Kavanaugh confirmed in time for the Court to start its annual term on October 1, so that the Court will not be short-staffed with an even number of justices that could result in cases unnecessarily wasted on 4-4 tie votes. (These efforts are not to be confused with the separate effort by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who is leading committee Democrats in filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for additional documents.) But Republicans have actually stepped up to the plate to help. Hundreds of thousands of the documents from the National Archives are also available through other sources, like President George W. Bush’s presidential library and the Office of George W. Bush. The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is the federal law that allows presidents to refuse to release many documents from an administration until 12 years after that president leaves office, after which many documents can still be kept private. The PRA also empowers a former presidents to designate someone to act for that president in deciding which documents he is willing to make public during that 12-year window. The man Bush designated under the PRA before the 43rd president left office in 2009, former White House Deputy Counsel William Burck, is leading a team of 50 lawyers who are reviewing all the document requests regarding Kavanaugh. Between Burck and the Archives, over 200,000 pages of documents have already been given to the committee – which is already more than the total number for any Supreme Court nominee in over 200 years.

And of course this is ALL completely irrelevant.  These Dems intend to vote against Judge Kavanaugh anyway.  So, this is just time-wasting, partisan politics at its worst.  Sen. Grassley (R-IA) is right to make sure that every REASONABLE attempt is made to secure as many docs as possible, to ensure that these hand-wringing Dems can’t disingenously cry foul during the hearings.  But, the good Senator from Iowa is also right to just keep the hearings on schedule and Kavanaugh’s confirmation moving forward.  The confirmation is forgone conclusion.  It’ll happen.  And none of these stalling tactics by these hypocritical Dems will stop that.

Democrats’ Border Separation Bill Would Let Nearly All Parents Who Commit Federal Crimes Get Off Scot-Free

Democrats’ proposed legislation to prohibit so-called border separations would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum. Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties. Let’s break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “Keep Families Together Act” to see where Democrats went wrong. The bill provides that “[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim. First, “designated agency” here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition on family separation to immigration-related matters. In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United States. Second, “agent or officer” is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it includes contractors. Federal law, however, already defines “officer” to include (with exceptions not relevant here) every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency. Here again, this bill is not limited to controlling the behavior of the DHS, DOJ, or HHS officers involved in the border crisis. The proposed law would apply with equal force to, say, FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS) in the exercise of their everyday duties. Third, “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border” does not meaningfully limit the geographic scope of this bill. That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States and the vast majority of people living in it. Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border. That’s roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population. Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma (more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly 600 miles from the nearest border crossing). All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near a port of entry or both. Finally, “child” is defined in this legislation as any individual who has not reached 18 years old who has no permanent immigration status. This astonishing definition includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18. Citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise. (Even if the Democrats belatedly amended this provision to restrict the definition to alien children without a permanent immigration status, that amended definition would still include non-migrant aliens, like tourist children, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients under the age of 18, and children whose parents have had their immigration status revoked.)

For more of this article from attorney Gabriel Malor, click on the text above.

California Democratic Party doesn’t endorse Feinstein re-election bid

The California Democratic Party will not endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s re-election bid this year, with delegates at the party’s annual convention giving the majority of votes to her top primary challenger, progressive State Sen. Kevin de Leon. De Leon got 54 percent of the vote, compared to 37 percent for the more moderate Feinstein, according to results released Sunday. But neither Democrat will receive the state party endorsement because they failed to reach the 60 percent threshold. The vote totals were not a surprise, considering the state party’s liberal leaning. And Feinstein leads de Leon by 29 percentage points in the primary race, according to the most recent RealClearPolitics polls average. “The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” said de Leon, according to Politico. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.” Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate at 84, is seeking a sixth term. Feinstein took heat last fall from some on the left after appearing to voice optimism about Trump becoming “a good president.” Feinstein also recently said that former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which Trump is ending, was on shaky legal ground. DACA provides a level of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants — many of whom came to the U.S. as children. Still, Feinstein will be difficult to beat, considering her establishment support and standing among independents and women, two key voting blocs. “It will be tough to outflank her in that capacity,” Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based pollster, recently said.

Agreed..  That’s why this really isn’t much of a story.  But, what makes it interesting is that the state party no longer endorses Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), who is now 84, and will be at least 85 when she starts her next term in the Senate.  That alone should make ANY California voter think twice before just blindly voting for her, just because she’s a Democrat, the general election…should she win in her primary.  Hopefully, the California Republican party will find a quality candidate who might, just might, be able to mount a credible threat to Dianne’s Senate seat.

French: The Left Distorts Originalism to Attack Judge Gorsuch

Why can’t United States senators, law-school deans, and journalists bother to understand or fairly characterize the legal doctrines they so vigorously oppose? This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein — fresh from lecturing Neil Gorsuch on the novel constitutional concept of “super precedent” — purported to attack Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy by reading a question from a law-school dean: “You are a self-professed originalist in your approach to constitutional interpretation. For example, you wrote, and I quote, “Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly to imply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be.” Now, do you agree with Justice Scalia’s state­ments that originalism means that there is no protection for women or gays and lesbians under the equal-protection law because this was not the intent or the understanding of those who drafted the 14th Amendment in 1868?” Note what happened here. Feinstein’s dean went straight from a quote to a straw man, fundamentally mischaracterizing Scalia and originalist jurisprudence in one consequential sentence. First, Scalia’s consistent position wasn’t that the equal-protection clause offered “no protection” to women or gays, but rather that it did not offer special or extraordinary protection. For example, here he was dissenting in Romer v. Evans, a decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting local governments from outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation: “The only denial of equal treatment it contends homosexuals have suffered is this: They may not obtain preferential treatment without amending the state constitution. That is to say, the principle underlying the Court’s opinion is that one who is accorded equal treatment under the laws, but cannot as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws, has been denied equal protection of the laws.” And second, when discussing “originalism,” for the vast majority of originalists, the key isn’t “original intent” but rather a concept called “original public meaning.” Once again, here’s Scalia dissenting from an overreaching majority — this time in U.S. v. Virginia, a case requiring a public all-male military academy to open its doors to female cadets: “The Citadel has existed as a state funded school of South Carolina since 1842. And all the federal military colleges — West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and even the Air Force Academy, which was not established until 1954 — admitted only males for most of their history. Their admission of women in 1976 (upon which the Court today relies), came not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change. . . . In other words, the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.” In other words, when the equal-protection clause was enacted, what were the words understood to mean? Were they understood to sweep away, say, restrictions on women in combat? Were they understood to mean that legislatures couldn’t enact laws that prohibit certain sexual practices? Drafters create a text, and that text has an original, understood meaning. That, in a nutshell is what “originalism” means. Or, if you prefer a master class from a far more esteemed source, here is Judge Gorsuch’s response to Senator Feinstein: (Just click here to see the video of Judge Gorsuch schooling Sen. Feinstein) If you don’t have two minutes to watch, the core of his explanation is this: “It would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. [The] point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it — what a good judge always strives to do and what we all do — is [to] understand what the words on the page mean, not import words that come from us. . . . It matters not that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws. That’s what they wrote. And those — the original meaning of those words, John Marshall Harlan captured in his dissent in [Plessy v. Ferguson], that equal protection of the laws does not mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender. It means equal.” The essence of originalism is answering this core question: What do the words on the page mean? It is not about making them mean what the judge wants them to mean. It is not about twisting, expanding, or redefining them to adjust their meaning. And to determine what the words mean, especially if the meaning is controversial, we must inquire into the original understanding of that meaning. Here’s a dirty little secret of the federal bench: This is how the vast majority of cases are decided, regardless of the judge’s ideology. Indeed, in court opinion after court opinion you’ll find even the most liberal jurists referring back to the passage of the legislation at issue to understand its meaning. This standard practice breaks down, however, at the cutting edge of left-wing ideology — especially as it pertains to the sexual revolution. Feinstein’s very next response to Gorsuch gave the game away. Rather than address what the words of the 14th Amendment are supposed to mean, she stampeded straight to her favored legal outcome, abortion rights, and talked about how she heard that women in college used to “pass the plate” to raise money to send friends to Mexico for abortions. This, of course, has nothing to do with the meaning of the words in the Constitution. The lesson from the legal Left — a lesson I was very clearly taught by multiple professors in law school — is that when a case is of sufficiently critical social importance, standard rules of legal interpretation give way to the greater demands of social justice. Here’s how one judge put it to me in his chambers: “You should always know the law, and you should always know what’s right. Do what’s right.” This would be an appealing notion if judges possessed godlike powers of judgment, but they don’t; they’re flawed like every other human. So it’s an appalling abuse of power. To smear Neil Gorsuch, the Left has created and attacked a straw man. Judge Gorsuch does not believe for example, that the equal-protection clause provides “no protection” to any class or category of American. Like Justice Scalia, one of his mentors, knew, he knows that all citizens are entitled to the considerable and invaluable protections outlined in the words of the 14th Amendment itself. If the Left wants to enhance or diminish those protections — or to create new rights and privileges entirely — it should win elections and pass laws, rather than looking to the court to pervert the Constitution.Why can’t United States senators, law-school deans, and journalists bother to understand or fairly characterize the legal doctrines they so vigorously oppose? This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein — fresh from lecturing Neil Gorsuch on the novel constitutional concept of “super precedent” — purported to attack Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy by reading a question from a law-school dean: “You are a self-professed originalist in your approach to constitutional interpretation. For example, you wrote, and I quote, “Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly to imply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be.” Now, do you agree with Justice Scalia’s state­ments that originalism means that there is no protection for women or gays and lesbians under the equal-protection law because this was not the intent or the understanding of those who drafted the 14th Amendment in 1868?” Note what happened here. Feinstein’s dean went straight from a quote to a straw man, fundamentally mischaracterizing Scalia and originalist jurisprudence in one consequential sentence. First, Scalia’s consistent position wasn’t that the equal-protection clause offered “no protection” to women or gays, but rather that it did not offer special or extraordinary protection. For example, here he was dissenting in Romer v. Evans, a decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting local governments from outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation: “The only denial of equal treatment it contends homosexuals have suffered is this: They may not obtain preferential treatment without amending the state constitution. That is to say, the principle underlying the Court’s opinion is that one who is accorded equal treatment under the laws, but cannot as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws, has been denied equal protection of the laws.” And second, when discussing “originalism,” for the vast majority of originalists, the key isn’t “original intent” but rather a concept called “original public meaning.” Once again, here’s Scalia dissenting from an overreaching majority — this time in U.S. v. Virginia, a case requiring a public all-male military academy to open its doors to female cadets: “The Citadel has existed as a state funded school of South Carolina since 1842. And all the federal military colleges — West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and even the Air Force Academy, which was not established until 1954 — admitted only males for most of their history. Their admission of women in 1976 (upon which the Court today relies), came not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change. . . . In other words, the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.” In other words, when the equal-protection clause was enacted, what were the words understood to mean? Were they understood to sweep away, say, restrictions on women in combat? Were they understood to mean that legislatures couldn’t enact laws that prohibit certain sexual practices? Drafters create a text, and that text has an original, understood meaning. That, in a nutshell is what “originalism” means. Or, if you prefer a master class from a far more esteemed source, here is Judge Gorsuch’s response to Senator Feinstein: (Just click here to see the video of Judge Gorsuch schooling Sen. Feinstein) If you don’t have two minutes to watch, the core of his explanation is this: “It would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. [The] point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it — what a good judge always strives to do and what we all do — is [to] understand what the words on the page mean, not import words that come from us. . . . It matters not that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws. That’s what they wrote. And those — the original meaning of those words, John Marshall Harlan captured in his dissent in [Plessy v. Ferguson], that equal protection of the laws does not mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender. It means equal.” The essence of originalism is answering this core question: What do the words on the page mean? It is not about making them mean what the judge wants them to mean. It is not about twisting, expanding, or redefining them to adjust their meaning. And to determine what the words mean, especially if the meaning is controversial, we must inquire into the original understanding of that meaning. Here’s a dirty little secret of the federal bench: This is how the vast majority of cases are decided, regardless of the judge’s ideology. Indeed, in court opinion after court opinion you’ll find even the most liberal jurists referring back to the passage of the legislation at issue to understand its meaning. This standard practice breaks down, however, at the cutting edge of left-wing ideology — especially as it pertains to the sexual revolution. Feinstein’s very next response to Gorsuch gave the game away. Rather than address what the words of the 14th Amendment are supposed to mean, she stampeded straight to her favored legal outcome, abortion rights, and talked about how she heard that women in college used to “pass the plate” to raise money to send friends to Mexico for abortions. This, of course, has nothing to do with the meaning of the words in the Constitution. The lesson from the legal Left — a lesson I was very clearly taught by multiple professors in law school — is that when a case is of sufficiently critical social importance, standard rules of legal interpretation give way to the greater demands of social justice. Here’s how one judge put it to me in his chambers: “You should always know the law, and you should always know what’s right. Do what’s right.” This would be an appealing notion if judges possessed godlike powers of judgment, but they don’t; they’re flawed like every other human. So it’s an appalling abuse of power. To smear Neil Gorsuch, the Left has created and attacked a straw man. Judge Gorsuch does not believe for example, that the equal-protection clause provides “no protection” to any class or category of American. Like Justice Scalia, one of his mentors, knew, he knows that all citizens are entitled to the considerable and invaluable protections outlined in the words of the 14th Amendment itself. If the Left wants to enhance or diminish those protections — or to create new rights and privileges entirely — it should win elections and pass laws, rather than looking to the court to pervert the Constitution.

Agreed!!  Well said, David!  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is responsible for that outstanding legal op/ed regarding the current confirmation hearings of Judge Gorsuch.  Excellent!!    🙂