(Video: MSNBC)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., attacked the U.S. Supreme Court in an appearance Sunday on MSNBC, saying it’s an “extremist court” that is “out of step with the American people.”
After four years of undermining a sitting U.S. president, going after the Supreme Court for not backing the Democratic agenda is mere child’s play for a party dominated today by the radical left and Warren did just that, justifying her attack by claiming the people are in their corner.
MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart ran a clip of a Democratic Texas state Rep. Jasmine Crockett criticizing the high court for acting like abortion was “an issue that we need to vacillate over.”
“She’s talking about the Supreme Court, what it’s doing vis-a-vis that super restrictive Texas anti-abortion law, that they won’t even put the brakes on while they take these arguments on November 1st,” Capehart said. “Your reaction to what the court is doing here?”
“Look, the court has signaled 40 different ways that it is an extremist court, out of step with the American people, and that it’s willing to line up and take a shot at Roe v. Wade,” Warren replied. “Now, whether they’ll get rid of it entirely or just let the states continue to chip at it, come on. They’ve given us every possible signal. But for me, what that means is it’s time for Congress to step up.”
She fell back on polling to argue that “70% of Americans” back Roe v. Wade, as she called on Congress to codify into law the right to kill unborn babies.
“The American people strongly support Roe v. Wade. About 70% of Americans say they want that to remain the law of the land. We don’t need the Supreme Court to do that. The United States Congress could do that. When 70% of the people support something, by golly, I think we ought to get out there and get it done.”
Of course, with a razor thin majority on Congress, Democrats are having trouble shoving their policies down the throats of the American people, as seen in their struggle to pass the massive $3.5 trillion social welfare bill. All of which explains why the party is desperate to kill the filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
On that note, Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared on CNN Sunday and voiced her support of eliminating the filibuster while sneering at the three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump. The 81-year-old speaker apparently forgot Trump’s name, calling him “what’s-his-name.”
“Now mind you, just to remind, when what’s-his-name was president and the Republicans were in power—” Pelosi said, with host Jake Tapper interjecting to remind her that it was Trump. “Mitch McConnell pulled back the filibuster to enable with simple majorities three justices to go to the Supreme Court for life. You would think that they could pull it back for the American people to have the vote,” Pelosi said.
.@SpeakerPelosi: "When what's-his-name was the president …"
Jake Tapper: "Donald Trump." pic.twitter.com/sTZYizMq5T
— The Hill (@thehill) October 24, 2021
Trump appointed Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and Democrats are likely to continue to question their legitimacy for the foreseeable future.
The filibuster came up during a discussion on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is a Trojan horse that will ensure Democratic dominance in national elections for decades to come.
“So, that is President Biden saying that he is willing to entertain the notion of getting rid of the filibuster for Voting Rights Act and maybe for other things as well. Do you agree with him on that one issue that, at the end of the day, having some sort of voting rights bill is more important than preserving the filibuster, at least for that one vote?” Tapper asked.
“The most important vote right now in the Congress of the United States is the vote to respect the sanctity of the vote, the fundamental basis of our democracy,” Pelosi said. “So, if there were one vote that the filibuster could enable to go forward, that would be the vote, and enable so much more, because we’re talking about stopping the suppression of the vote and the nullification of the elections,”
Many believe that the party has been manipulating immigration laws for decades to fundamentally — and artificially — transform voter demographics in America and now have their eyes set on doing the same thing with voting laws under the guise of preventing the myth of voter suppression.
As for Pelosi’s forgetfulness, last year she forgot George Floyd’s name while speaking on police reform legislation.
“And I said ‘I’ll recommend that to the Judiciary Committee and to the Congressional Black Caucus who have shaped the bill, but I only will do that if you tell me that this legislation is worthy of George Kirby’s name,’ and he said it is, and so we’re very proud, we’re very proud to carry that,” she said.
But then, that seems to be par for the course in having octogenarians, or near-octogenarians, as is the case with 79-year-old Biden, leading the country. The Wall Street Journal editorial board sounded the alarm last week, as seen on Twitter:
“We take no pleasure in pointing this out, since the U.S. needs a President who can handle the strains of the job. Mr. Biden was never Demosthenes, and all president stumble in speech. But Mr. Biden’s frequent public confusion about the major issues of the day is a reason for growing public concern,” the board wrote.
What America needs, besides lucid leaders, is a fair press. Especially when it comes to the Supreme Court, as noted Sunday night by Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy.
The former Republican congressman hit the media for its “overtly partisan” coverage of the high court on “Sunday Night in America” in a focus on the White House’s presidential Supreme Court commission, which is studying the possibility of expanding — see packing — the bench.
“To the media, just try to at least fake being fair,” Gowdy said. “The way you frame issues and court decisions is overtly partisan. It sews the seeds of discord in our country. It treats serious and complex legal issues with a provocative headline and a tweet.”
He said the media portrays conservative justices as wanting to “restrict, deny and limit.”
“Liberal judges, they want to expand and empower and liberate,” Gowdy said. “The words they use proves their bias, and their bias explains their diminished role in our country and diminished view of the court by the public.”
“Do we want fairness or just a decision we agree with? Can we separate what the law is, from what we want it to be?” he added. “Do we have the discipline to win the debate or do we just want to win the Supreme Court vote? We don’t need more or fewer justices. We don’t need to set their docket or their retirement decisions, we need a court that understands its role… justices who can disagree with, and even dissent from even their own personal feelings, and we need to elevate the virtue of fairness.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Tom@bizpacreview.com
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
