YESTERDAY THE ABILITY TO FILIBUSTER SUPREME COURT
NOMINEES WAS NUKED, NOBODY IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT IT ANYMORE
BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CHANGE HAPPENED TODAY, WHERE
NEIL GORSUCH, DONALD TRUMP'S NOMINEE, FILL THAT SEAT ON THE
COURT, WHICH I AFFECTIONATELY CALL PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S
SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT WHICH WAS STOLEN FROM HIM --
THOSE ARE IMPORTANT NUMBERS, PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT IS 49,
THAT'S HOW OLD NEIL GORSUCH IS, HE'S LIKELY TO BE ON THIS REPORT
FOR 30 OR 35 YEARS, AS LONG AS ANY OF US WILL PROBABLY DO THIS
JOB.
FOR THE REST OF OUR CAREERS THIS GUY WILL BE ON THE SUPREME
COURT BECAUSE THE SEAT WAS SUCCESSFULLY STOLEN AS A RESULT
OF THE MACHINATIONS OF THE REPUBLICANS AND WEAKNESS OF THE
DEMOCRATS.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT VOTES COMING UP WHICH
HE WILL BE ABLE TO STEP HIS MARK ON.
WE HAD ALMOST A FULL DAY OF
TESTIMONY FROM HIM WHEN HE WAS BEING GRILLED BY THE SENATORS,
HE SUCCESSFULLY TOLD US NOTHING ABOUT HOW HE WOULD RULE, BUT THE
PROOF WILL BE IN THE PUDDING --
-- SPECIFICALLY IF THEY CAN SPEND MONEY TO SPRUCE UP
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS' BUILDINGS --
--
AND BERNIE SANDERS HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT HIS WORRIES
ABOUT GORSUCH'S VIEWS ON THOSE ISSUES --
THAT IS JUST IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS.
LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN.
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL REFER TO GORSUCH
AS THE ILLEGITIMATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH.
I
STARTED CALLING JOHN BOEHNER TOBACCO CHECKS JOHN BOEHNER A
DECADE AGO AS HE WAS HANDING OUT CHECKS FROM THE TOBACCO LOBBY AS
THEY WERE VOTING ON TOBACCO SUBSIDIES.
SO FOR GORSUCH IF IT
TAKES THREE DECADES, I WILL CALL HIM ILLEGITIMATE FOR THREE
DECADES, BECAUSE THAT'S A STOLEN SEAT.
BUT DEMOCRATS, THEIR
INCOMPETENCE AND FECKLESSNESS AND WEAKNESSES WAS REVOLTING.
LET'S GET TO THE HYPOCRISY OF GORSUCH.
WHEN YOU GO TO THE
SUBSTANCE OF HIM, LEAVING ASIDE HOW WE GOT THERE, THE NEW YORK
TIMES CALLS HIM A RELIABLE CONSERVATIVE COMMITTED TO
FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHO
DRAFTED AND RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION.
STOP SAYING THAT,
THAT'S RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA, THAT'S NOT REMOTELY TRUE.
HE
SAYS HE IS ORIGINALIST, THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ORIGINALIST.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, HE SAYS WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ABORTION BECAUSE
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ABORTION.
HE SAYS
THAT ABOUT ABORTION, BUT NOT ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
THE
FOUNDING FATHERS BORDERLINE DESPISED CORPORATIONS, THEY SAID
THEY ARE A DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC.
IS HE AND ORIGINALIST
ON THAT?
NO, HE'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
HE'S PROBABLY THE MOST
PRO-CORPORATE JUDGE WHOEVER MADE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT.
HE
THINKS CORPORATIONS ARE HUMAN BEINGS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE
ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES WITH THAT PREPOSTEROUS IDEA.
HOW
ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
IT SAYS FOR A MILITIA, FOR A WELL
REGULATED MILITIA.
I KNOW EVERYBODY FLIPS OUT AND GOES
THAT DOESN'T COUNT -- WAIT, WHY DOESN'T COUNT?
IF YOU THINK IT
DOESN'T COUNT, THAT'S FINE, BUT IF YOU ARE AND ORIGINALIST YOU
SHOULD READ THAT AND GO IT SAYS FOR A MILITIA, YOU AREN'T A
MILITIA.
I'M READING IT AS IT IS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU CLAIM YOU
ARE DOING, GORSUCH, SO YOU WILL BAN GUNS, RIGHT?
YOU AREN'T AND
ORIGINALIST, YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR INTENTION.
AND IN
THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEAN FOR YOU TO HAVE AN AK-47?
NO, THEY
WROTE IT ABOUT MILITIAS.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS AND
YOU DON'T GIVE A DAMN, SO DON'T DO HIM THE FAVOR OF PRETENDING
HE'S ORIGINALIST OR HE HAS PRINCIPLES.
I WON'T PROVE IT, HE
WILL PROVE IT, BY HIS FUTURE ACTIONS.
JOHN TOLD YOU ABOUT
SOME CASES COMING UP.
HUGE CASES INVOLVING CORPORATIONS ARE
COMING OUT, HE WILL VOTE FOR THEM IN A MOST EVERY INSTANCE,
I'M TELLING YOU AHEAD OF TIME, NOT AFTERWARDS.
THE ONE I THINK
IS MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL REVEAL WHO HE IS, IS THE
COURT WILL HEAR A CASE ABOUT WHETHER CORPORATIONS CAN BE SUED
FOR COMPLICITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS CASES ABROAD.
IF HE WAS
CONSISTENT, HE BELIEVES CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, HE
THINKS THEY HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF HUMAN
BEINGS --
THAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION, I HEAR.
NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, GREAT POINT, JOHN.
HE KNOWS IF I DO
EVERYTHING CORPORATIONS TELL ME TWO, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS WILL
PUT ME ON THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEIR DONORS ARE
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS.
THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN AMERICA IS NEIL
GORSUCH.
IN THAT CASE HE WILL PROVE IT.
BECAUSE IF YOU THINK
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, OF COURSE YOU WOULD HOLD THEM
COMPLICIT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES LIKE PEOPLE WOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
ANY HUMAN BEING WHO DOES A HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE WOULD
BE TRIED.
WILL CORPORATIONS GET THE SAME TREATMENT?
MY GUESS IS,
AND WE WILL FIND OUT, GORSUCH WILL SAY, HMM, NO, THEY ARE
PEOPLE WHEN THEY WANT TO BRIBE POLITICIANS, AND I'M GOING TO
PRETEND THEY HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEECH AND I
WILL PRETEND MONEY IS SPEECH, AND I WILL GIVE THEM ALL THE
BENEFITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS, BUT NONE
OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES.
WHEN IT COMES TO HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE, HE WILL RULE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
GOLLY GEE, THEY ARE NOT HUMAN, HOW COULD YOU HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE?
WATCH AND SEE WHAT A TOTAL FRAUD GORSUCH IS.
THIS IS PART OF WHAT DRIVES ME CRAZY, AND EVEN THE NEW YORK
TIMES, NOT JUST THE TV NEWS ACTORS, IS GUILTY OF THIS.
THEY
LET THE REPUBLICANS AND THE RIGHT-WINGERS FRAME THEMSELVES
IN ANY WAY THEY WANT, AND THEY DON'T CHALLENGE IT.
DON'T LET
THEM DO PROPAGANDA.
SAYING GORSUCH HAS PRINCIPLES ABOUT
BEING AN ORIGINALIST AND IS CONSISTENT ON HOW HE RULES IS
SIMPLY NOT FACTUAL.
REPORT THE FACTS.
YOU SHOULD HAVE TO REPORT IF HE ACTUALLY IS A STRICT
INTERPRETATION IS, BUT EVEN IF HE IS, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO POINT
OUT WHAT THAT MEANS IN PRACTICE.
THAT'S ACTUALLY A HORRENDOUS WAY
TO TRY TO RUN THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU POINTED OUT SOME
TECHNOLOGICAL WAYS WE HAVE CHANGED, WE'VE ALSO CHANGED IN
TERMS OF SOCIETY.
IF YOU DID STRICTLY GO BY WHAT IS IN THE
CONSTITUTION, WE WOULD LIVE IN AS EFFED-UP A COUNTRY AS WE DID
WHEN WE PASSED THAT CONSTITUTION, WHERE PEOPLE WERE
IN CHAINS AND WOMEN AND WORKERS HAD NO RIGHTS AND CHILDREN WERE
IN COAL MINES.
THANK GOD WE EVOLVED AS A SOCIETY.
IT'S
AMAZING THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CLAIM THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD IF
YOU STRICTLY FOLLOWED WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAID.
AND EVEN ON THAT NOTE, THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID THAT EVERY
GENERATION GETS TO INTERPRET THIS DOCUMENT, WE CANNOT JUST
LET OUR INTERPRETATION OF IT RULE.
HE LITERALLY SAID IT.
IF
YOU CARED ABOUT THE INTENTION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS YOU WOULD
GO, JEFFERSON SAID EVERY GENERATION SHOULD INTERPRET IT
AND WE SHOULDN'T JUST LISTEN TO MY WORDS.
YOU KNOW WHY JEFFERSON
SAID THAT?
BECAUSE HE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY, HE THOUGHT
REVOLUTIONS WEREN'T A BAD THING AND YOU SHOULD CHALLENGE YOUR
GOVERNMENT AND NOT BOW DOWN TO AUTHORITY.
HE WAS ONE OF THE
BIGGEST REBELS LITERALLY IN WORLD HISTORY, AND NOW THEY
PRETEND HE WAS A CONSERVATIVE WHO WANTED THE STATUS QUO WHEN
HE DID A REVOLUTION AGAINST THE STATUS QUO.
HE SAID IT WITH HIS
OWN WORDS, INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT AS YOU GO.
BUT SOMEHOW
GORSUCH DIDN'T GET THAT MEMO BECAUSE THE MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS DIDN'T WANT HIM TO.
IF YOU CAN PREP FOR VIDEO 7, REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT
THEIR HISTORIC ACTION, GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER ON
JUDICIAL EMANATIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WILL HAVE
RIPPLES FOR YEARS AND DECADES, IN WAYS REPUBLICANS MIGHT NOT
LIKE, THEY SAID WE HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF THE
UNPRECEDENTED DEMOCRATIC FILIBUSTER OF NEIL GORSUCH.
BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE HAS NEVER BEEN LIKE A FOUR-DAY
FILIBUSTER IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA BEFORE, THIS IS
HISTORIC.
WHICH IS IRONIC CONSIDERING THE ACTIONS THEY
TOOK NOT TOO LONG AGO, THANKFULLY JAYAR JACKSON PUTS
TOGETHER THIS MASHUP OF WHAT GOP-ERS THOUGHT WHEN BARACK
OBAMA WAS TRYING TO FILL THAT SPOT.
WE HOPE OUR DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS WILL TREAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
NOMINEES IN THE SAME WAY WE TREATED CLINTON AND OBAMA.
DOESN'T THE SENATE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS AND HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE?
NOT REMOTELY.
THE QUESTION IS, WILL HE HAVE A HEARING AND BE TAKEN UP BY THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE?
HE WILL NOT BE.
WHEN YOU HAVE A HEARING FOR JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND?
NO.
THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T PLAN ON HOLDING HEARINGS RELATED TO
THIS ISSUE.
I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF IT.
THIS NOMINEE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
BY CHOOSING TO WITHHOLD OUR CONSENT IN THIS CASE WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB.
DO YOU KNOW MERRICK GARLAND?
I DON'T, BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT.
THE POINT DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH TO DO WITH WHO HE NOMINATED.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT YOU ARE, I'M NOT GOING
TO SUPPORT ANYONE NOMINATED BY OBAMA.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR NOMINEE.
I DON'T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT JUDGE GARLAND'S QUALIFICATIONS.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT A PARTICULAR PERSON, THIS IS
ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE.
ONE OF MY PROUDEST MOMENTS IS WHEN I LOOKED BARACK OBAMA
AND THE I AND I SAID MISSA PRESIDENT, YOU WILL NOT
FILL THE SERENE COURT VACANCY.
WE KNOW THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE B.S.
WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THEM
UNDER OBAMA, NOW THEY'VE DONE A 180, BUT PHILOSOPHICALLY THEY
WERE LYING BECAUSE THEY SAID WE JUST WANT THE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE
TO CHOOSE.
IGNORE THE FACT THAT TWICE IN A ROW LEADING TO OBAMA
YOU HAVE PEOPLE VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE RATHER THAN
THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE
THINK NOW, MORE RECENTLY.
WE HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION, MORE
PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, BUT FOR SOME REASON
THAT ISN'T FACTORED IN.
ITS COMPLETE HYPOCRISY.
YOU WILL
CALL HIM AN ILLEGITIMATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, THAT MAKES SENSE,
WE SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT EVERY TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS THE
MASSIVE -- THE ONLY THING THAT WAS HISTORIC WAS THE HYPOCRISY
OF REPUBLICANS WILLING TO JETTISON HUNDREDS OF YEARS
OF TRADITION BECAUSE THEY SO DESPERATELY HAD TO GET
GORSUCH ON THE COURT.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO FILIBUSTER IF THEY NEVER HELD A HEARING.
THEY WOULD SAY WE DIDN'T FILIBUSTER -- YOU DIDN'T EVEN
ATTEMPT A HEARING.
DEMOCRATS DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT BECAUSE
WHEN THAT WAS GOING ON MY VIEW WAS, AND I LOVE BARACK OBAMA,
I'M A BIG SUPPORTER, BUT I WANTED HIM TO BE JUST LIKE THEM
AND SAY NO, I'M SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, I'M NOT DOING
ANYTHING UNTIL YOU ACT ON THE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.
BECAUSE
THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO GET ACTION OUT OF THEM, AND
THEY DID IT, THEY SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT TO GET THEIR WAY.
GORSUCH IS HORRIBLE, AND THIS WHOLE THING OF CORPORATIONS
BEING PEOPLE -- THIS IS WORSE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO LAST FOR
SO LONG.
AT 49 HE COULD BE THERE FOR 30 OR MORE YEARS.
WHO KNOWS
WHAT DECISIONS HE WILL MAKE, BUT THEY WON'T GOING TO AFFECT YOU.
WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE ORIGINALIST, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, GENTLEMEN, I AM NOT AND ORIGINALIST.
THINGS WERE NOT TOO GOOD FOR ME BACK THEN.
3/5 OF YOU ARE.
THE CONSTITUTION ABSOLUTELY WAS WRITTEN TO BE A LIVING
DOCUMENT, TO BE CHANGED -- YOU LOOK AT THE TECHNOLOGY, THE
INFORMATION, THE DIVERSITY, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, THERE
WERE 13 STATES THEN.
THE WEST DIDN'T EXIST.
HOW COULD YOU MAKE
DECISIONS, FORGET ABOUT INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS, LIKE
WHEN YOU WERE TRAVELING BY SHIP AND IT TOOK A MONTH -- WE
WEREN'T BOMBING SYRIA WHEN IT TOOK FOUR MONTHS TO GET THERE,
AND THEN YOU HAD TO GET A GIANT SLINGSHOT.
THE WHOLE THING, THEY
SCARE ME WHEN I TALK ABOUT ORIGINALISTS, THE OTHER THING IS
WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND THE BIBLE,
BECAUSE WHEN THEY START TALKING ABOUT THAT -- THE BIBLICAL THING
IS ALWAYS A CHOICE.
IT'S LIKE, WE ARE CHRISTIAN BUT WE LIKE
THOSE PUNISHMENTS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, SO EVERY NOW AND THEN
WE GO BACK TO THE OLD TESTAMENT WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO PUNISH
WOMEN OR MINORITIES OR TO AUTHORIZE THE POLICE TO DO
SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PUNISH -- IT'S A TERRIBLE
DECISION BUT WE ARE STUCK WITH IT.
TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW MEANS
NOTHING BECAUSE THIS IS DONE, THEY CAN'T UNDO IT.
AND THE
SUPREME COURT HAS FOR SOME TIME NOW -- THE CONFIRMATION IS THAT
IT'S A FULLY POLITICAL ENTITY JUST LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE AND
CONGRESS.
NOW ALL THREE BRANCHES ARE FULLY POLITICAL.
AND AGAIN
GETTING BACK TO THE INTENT, THE INTENT WAS FOR THE SUPREME COURT
TO BE ABOVE POLITICS AND THE SUPREME COURT TO SETTLE THOSE
FIGHTS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
NOW THEY ARE PART OF IT, A VICTIM TO IT.
THE FILIBUSTER IS IMPORTANT IN THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES THE
PRESIDENT NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO IS ACCEPTABLE IN SOME SENSE TO
THE OTHER PARTY.
THAT'S WHY YOU GET SOME KIND OF INPUT, NOW THAT
IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE THING WITH
THE DEMOCRATS AND BARACK OBAMA DID NOT FIGHT HARD ENOUGH, THEY
DIDN'T FIGHT AT ALL.
THEY
WERE ARROGANT, THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD WIN IN NOVEMBER.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
ABSOLUTELY.
EVEN MORE CYNICAL THAN THAT, JOHN, I THINK IT WAS THAT THEY
WERE USING THAT TO ENSURE CERTAIN VOTES FOR HILLARY
CLINTON, AND THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T FIGHT TO GET GORSUCH -- I
MEAN MERRICK GARLAND -- IN TO BEGIN WITH.
THEY KNEW THIS WILL
BE ANOTHER THING, WE WILL GET HIM IN ANYWAY BECAUSE HILLARY
WILL WIN, IT DIDN'T WORK THAT WAY.
THAT'S ANOTHER REASON
BARACK OBAMA DIDN'T APPOINT A LEFTIST, HE APPOINTED A
CORPORATE FRIENDLY GUY LIKE MERRICK GARLAND, OR NOMINATED A
GUY LIKE THAT, THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE BECAUSE NOW NO ONE ON
THE LEFT GAVE A SHIT THAT HE WOULDN'T GET SEATED BECAUSE WE
DIDN'T WANT HIM SEATED ANYWAY, WE'D RATHER HAVE SOMEONE IN LINE
WITH OUR IDEOLOGY.
SO TWO BIG FAILURES, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS WIPED OUT AT EVERY LEVEL OF
GOVERNMENT, THESE SPINELESS ACTIONS.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I
EVER SAW ANY OF THOSE VIDEOS OF THOSE REPUBLICANS SAYING THAT
STUFF.
THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING THAT IN COMMERCIALS
CONSTANTLY, NONSTOP.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE SHUT THE
GOVERNMENT DOWN, NO PRICE TO PAY FOR ANY OF THEIR MALFEASANCE.
NOW THEY AREN'T GOING TO PAY FOR THIS EITHER.
DEMOCRATS AREN'T
GOING TO MAKE THEM PAY A PRICE FOR GETTING RID OF THE
FILIBUSTER, THIS GORSUCH IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY.
IF YOU SAW AL
FRANKEN'S QUESTIONING OF HIM YOU KNOW THE KIND OF MINUTES HE CAN
BE, HE IS EMPTY, SOULLESS, AND BOUGHT, HE'S BAD FOR THE
COUNTRY.
DEMOCRATS NEED TO STICK THIS TO THE REPUBLICANS AND THEY
ARE GOING TO.
JUSTICE DEMOCRATS WILL.
I KNOW THEY THINK, YOU ARE GOING TO GET
REAL PROGRESSIVES IN THE CONGRESS?
WE WILL SEE YOU IN THE
PRIMARIES.
IF THEY WERE JUSTICE DEMOCRATS THEY WOULD'VE GONE
BALLISTIC AND NEVER LET REPUBLICANS GET AWAY WITH THIS.
I KNOW WHAT DEMOCRATS' FAVORITE SAYING IS, THERE WAS NOTHING WE
COULD DO ABOUT IT.
THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL.
AS ALONZO POINTED
OUT, IF YOU HAD A STRONG PROGRESSIVE AS PRESIDENT HE
COULD SAY I'M SHUTTING THE WHOLE THING DOWN, LET'S HAVE A REAL
CONVERSATION NOW.
DO I GET TO NOMINATE A JUSTICE OR DON'T I?
I
DO, THEY ARE WRONG, I'M RIGHT, LET'S SEE WHO WINS.
AND I WILL
BREAK THE BACK UNTIL THEY PUT THIS GUY IN, OTHERWISE THEY WILL
LOSE THEIR SEATS FOR NOT FOLLOWING OATH THEY TOOK WHEN
THEY CAME INTO OFFICE.
BUT THAT'S WHY WE HATE THESE
CORPORATE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY NEVER FIGHT FOR US.
FINALLY, THE
WHOLE POINT OF A JUDGE IS TO USE JUDGMENT.
SO TO SAY ORIGINAL
INTENT -- OKAY, DID JAMES MADISON AND JOHN HANCOCK WANT TO
MAKE CALIFORNIA STATE?
WHO KNOWS?
CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME
WAS LITERALLY NOT ON OUR MAP, IT WAS NOT PART OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THE WHOLE POINT IS, AS NEW CASES, IN A NEW TIME, YOU
ARE SUPPOSED TO USE YOUR JUDGMENT AND NOT GO I WONDER
WHAT JOHN ADAMS WOULD HAVE DONE ABOUT CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE THAT
MAKES NO DAMN SENSE AT ALL.
THEY KNOW IT DOESN'T, AND BOTH THE
DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA HAVE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS FRAUD
FOR WAY TOO LONG.