The internet has a LOOOONG memory, as today’s Democrats on Capital Hill are finding out.Back in the Obama days, especially the early ones, when they had power and control, they said all sorts of things they didn’t truly believe but said them anyway in order to get their agenda pushed through. Now that the script has flipped and Republicans have the control, the very words Dems spoke yesteryear are revealing just how biased, hyper-partisan and truly hypocritical they are.
Latest case-in-point? Senator Dianne Feinstein.
As Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and other prominent Senate Democrats continue to make clear their intentions to fillibuster the nomination of Dr. Neil Gorsuch for no real reasons other than he’s a Trump appointee and that’s enough, video has surfaced of Senator Feinstein claiming in 2006 that fillibustering a nominee because you “might disagree” with him is wrong. Oh, that pesky combination of the internet and your own words.
Feinstein has announced her opposition to Gorsuch because she isn’t sure he’d fight to protect the little guy (as opposed to interpreting the Constitution equally for all.) In 2006, while considering the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito, Feinstein sang the following tune (from Townhall:)“She used to be rational when it came to Supreme Court nominations. In 2006, when Senate Democrats were mulling what to do with Judge Samuel Alito (now Justice Alito), the California Senator told Bob Schieffer, then-host of CBS’ Face The Nation, that a filibuster of Alito would be unlikely because you can’t just block a Supreme Court nominee just because you disagree with him or her.
BOB SCHIEFFER: “Are your concerns strong enough, Senator, then that you would support a filibuster to block him?”
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: “I do not see the likelihood of a filibuster to be very candid with you. I don’t see those kinds of egregious things emerging that would justify a filibuster. I think when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment; you really have to have something out there whether it’s gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface. Now I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”Yet Feinstein now stands in opposition to Neil Gorsuch. Why? In a statement on her website Feinstein wrote that she explicitly opposes Gorsuch because she “hoped [he] would better explain his judicial philosophies and personal views at this hearing.” Feinstein also wrote that she opposes Gorsuch because she “is now aware of how he personally feels about legal issues, regardless of whether they are set legal precedent.”
In other words — because she disagrees with him.Hypocrisy much?
[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]