DNC Stomps on Multiple Rakes in Rush to Slam Trump Over 'Affordable' Health...
Let's Check on How Many Network Evening Newscasts Mentioned the Fraud Arrests in...
Endorsed! Corrupt Clintonista Marc Elias Accidentally Makes the Best Case Ever for Harmeet...
Here's How CBS News Reported $4 Gas Under Biden vs. Trump
Vindman Outrage is the Ultimate Endorsement: Hegseth Rightly Boots Army Chief Gen. George
Newsom Press Office Follows Up 'President With a Brain' Post With Even More...
Make Military Bases Great Again: Pete Hegseth Restores God-Given 2A Rights to Servicemembe...
Thanksgiving, Rockets, and Saving the World: Libs Meltdown Over American Greatness — Cry...
Houston Calls Good Friday the 'Spring Holiday Weekend' – Because Saying 'Easter' Is...
Rep. Ro Khanna's NOT Lying for a Change (About What'll Happen If the...
Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s Parenting Tips Include Dolls for Boys and Gender-Swapping Male Bo...
NBC News: Death of Refugee Released by Border Patrol Determined to Be a...
New ‘Maryland Man’ Joins ‘Virginia Dad’ in the Headlines
Meryl Streep Tells Colbert Married Women May Be Disqualified at Voting Booth If...
The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last: ‘America Lost. Iran Won.’

Sen. Mazie Hirono to originalist court nominee: 'You would not allow women and blacks to vote'

Trump judicial nominee Lawrence VanDyke is an originalist and said in a hearing Wednesday that he would “look to the Constitution” when considering whether laws were constitutional. This apparently set off alarm bells for Sen. Mazie Hirono, who seemed to assume that as an originalist, VanDyke would only look to the Constitution before it was amended.

Advertisement

That’s some gotcha. Alex Griswold reports in the Washington Free Beacon:

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.

… “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.

Advertisement

Advertisement


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement