Hypocrite Josh Shapiro Uses Squatter's Rights to Build Himself a Security Barrier on...
Monumental Idea: A 'Mount Rushmore' to Honor CNN’s Most Ridiculous Cringeworthy Moments
Democrat Operatives Now Very Concerned With Fiscal Responsibility
CNN’s Abby Phillip Issues On-Air Correction to Lie That Suspected Terrorists Targeted NYC...
UK Teachers Told Students’ Drawings Could Be Blasphemous Under Islamic Law
Even Chicago Tribune Questions Story of Citizen Who Says ICE Detained Her for...
James Talarico: Fascism Will Come Draped in the (Trans) Flag and Carrying the...
Hilarious Parody CPAC Line Up Revealed
Olivia Julianna: America Literally Became a Country Because a Bunch of Men Signed...
Chile Chooses God and Family: Pro-Life Dad of 9 José Antonio Kast Takes...
Swalwell: All Ears for Optics, Deaf to Waste – Flies South for Clicks...
Another CNN Reporter Walks Back Post Implying That Mamdani Was the Target of...
Molly Jong-Fast Raked for Complaining About ‘Astronomical Amount’ Spent on Shellfish for T...
Human Springboard for IED-Throwing Terrorist Spends His 15 Minutes Talking About White Sup...
Adam Schiff's Attempt to Shame Pete Hegseth's 'Waste of Taxpayer Dollars' Via a...

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