Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Diane "Batshit Mad" Feinstein's opening statement at Robert's Hearing


Okay, I have the Complete Day 1 Transcript from Confirmthem.com of Senator Diane Feinstein's opening comments in the Roberts hearing. Why bother? Because this "Senator" from Kalifornia (or Pedafornia, or whatever) said something which was excerpted on Fox News that I thought "that is out of context". Well, I got the transcript, and guess what, it wasn't.

This woman is batshit crazy. I HAVE excerpted some of her remarks, with my repartee added. The entire transcript is too long and too sad to put here. This lady is out to lunch... Heereweego!

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Transcript
Monday, September 12, 2005

SPECTER: Senator Feinstein?

FEINSTEIN: "Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Judge Roberts and Mrs. Roberts and the Roberts family.

This must be a moment of enormous pride for you. And I hope that despite the toughness of this hearing, you really realize that this family member of yours is taking over not just the position of an associate justice, but the chief justice of the United States at a time of unique division and polarization in this country.
"unique division and polarization?" okaay??? Let's let that one pass. It is just the start of her statement.
And so many of us are going to be pressing him to see if he has got what we think it takes to do this."
then some cute aside to ex Senator Fred Thompson ..
Judge Roberts, thank you very much.

We spent a very interesting hour together. I came away from it feeling that you’re certainly brilliant, talented and well qualified, and I don’t think there’s a question about that.

But as we take a look at you, 50 years old, to be chief justice of the United States, I think it’s really essential for us to try to determine whether you can be the kind of leader that can generate consensus, find compromise and, above all, really embody the mainstream of American legal thinking.

For me, the most important thing is to see that the chief justice really cares about the fact that justice is provided to all Americans. It’s been said here before, but it’s really important — young and old, rich and poor, powerful and unpowerful, all races, creeds, colors, et cetera."

"This is going to be a big session..."
then she touches on abortion, the environment, la di dah...
Chief Justice Rehnquist, I believe, will be remembered not only for this distinguished tenure, which it certainly was, but also for applying a much more restrictive interpretation of the Constitution which has limited the role of Congress.

In recent years, the court has adopted a politically conservative states’ rights view of several constitutional provisions.
Yep, the court hasn't made law out of whole cloth like you and your leftist friends would like them to.
As a result, congressional authority to enact important legislation has been significantly curtailed...
Okay, if this is legislation you and your Commie friends put out, I'm sure the Court did the right thing.
Based on these federalism grounds, the court has wiped out ...
a lot of her pet leftist legislation.
In fact, over the past decade, the Rehnquist court has weakened or invalidated more than three dozen federal statutes. Almost a third of these decisions were based on the commerce clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. If you, Judge Roberts, subscribe the Rehnquist court’s restrictive interpretation of Congress’s ability to legislate, the impact could be enormous. It would severely restrict the ability of a Congress to tackle nationwide issues that the American people have actually elected us to address.
Or issues which the rest of the nation feel that you are moonbat crazy on, like gun control, Senator.
Now, as the only woman on this committee... (lots of stuff about how women have been abused, and that she is the only protector) ...
It actually wasn’t until 1839 that a woman could own property separate from her husband, when Mississippi passed the Married Women’s Property Act.
No kidding? Mississippi? 166 YEARS AGO!
It wasn’t until the 19th century that women began working outside their homes in large numbers. Most often, women were employed as teachers or nurses, and in textile mills and garment shops.
Okay the 1800s.. What the hell is your point?
As women entered into the workforce, we had to fight our way into nontraditional fields: medicine, law, business, and yes, even politics.

The American Medical Association was founded in 1846. But it barred women for 69 years from membership, until 1915.
90 YEARS AGO SENATOR
FEINSTEIN: The American Bar Association was founded in 1876, but it barred women and did not admit them until 1918. That’s 42 years later. And it wasn’t until 1920 when, after a very hard fight, women won the right to vote — not even 100 years ago.
Okay Senator, I give up, 87 years ago and 85 years ago. What the HELL does this have to do with John Roberts?
(she goes on to babble about women and abortion) ... "As a college student at Stanford, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so a young woman could go to Tijuana for a back-alley abortion. I knew a young woman who killed herself because she was pregnant."


And I will be looking to understand your views on the constitutional provision for providing for the separation of church and state — once again, history.


For centuries, individuals have been persecuted for their religious beliefs.

During the Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and even today, millions of innocent people have been killed or tortured because of their religion.

A week ago, I was walking up the Danube River in Budapest when I saw on the shore 60 pair of shoes covered in copper — women’s shoes, men’s shoes, small tiny children’s shoes. They lined the bank of the river.

My time is already up? May I just finish this one paragraph?

SPECTER: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: During World War II, it turned out that Hungarian fascists and Nazi soldiers forced thousands of Jews, including men, women and children, to remove their shoes before shooting them and letting their bodies float down the Danube.

These shoes represent a powerful symbol of how religion has been used in catastrophic ways historically. The rest of my comments we’ll have to wait for.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
Okay, Senator, let's go on a little diatribe for Judge Roberts about the Holocaust and how "Hungarian fascists and Nazi" shot a bunch of people. I guess it happened, it happened a lot of other places, too.

What is the point?

John Roberts is 50 years old. He knows about history, too.

Are you insinuating that he is a Nazi?

Do you have to remind us that you are a Jew?

Do you think this "historical fact" is important to the committee process you are grandstanding in front of?

"These shoes represent a powerful symbol of how religion has been used in catastrophic ways historically." -- I have a few symbols about how the LACK of religion has been used historically, too, Senator. Communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century (actually in about 80 years). Sorry, no shoes to show for it, maybe some Cambodian skulls might help as a symbol...

Are you really this crazy Senator?

2 Comments:

Blogger Middle_America said...

Yes. She is that crazy.
It boils down to this. She and other

Democrats are very nervous to lose their holdings on judges that create laws and policies as opposed to correctly interpretating them.

I have been listening to the court hearings from C-span radio and she stated today "I would ask you a question but you wont answer it."

Spector interjected and told her to simply ask her questions. Gotta put a nod to Spector's way in handling the Dems on this one.

Feinstein after a pause blurted "how would you rule on abortion."

It comes down to basically 2 things for the Dems, abortion and gay rights. They are urging him to define 'private rights' to get a understanding how he will use it toward abortion and gay rights.

1:31 AM  
Blogger Mongo said...

Yep MA, I absolutely agree.

I find it hilarious that the mental midgets like Kennedy and Feinstein are actually taken SERIOUSLY, but I don't want to disrespect their states either.

Roberts is spinning their heads like a top, from what I've seen. I guess actually ARGUING cases in front of the Supreme Court is good practice for facing these amateurs.

4:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home