이것의. 이 대통령은 민주당 동료를 '최악’ Amy Coney Barrett 판사에 대해 들어 본 비판

이것의. Lee rips Democratic colleague for 'worst' criticism he's heard yet of Justice Amy Coney Barrett

이것의. 에드 마키, D-Mass., calling the judicial originalism “인종 차별 주의자, 성 차별 주의자, homophobic and a fancy word for discriminationis “patently irresponsible,” said Sen. 마이크 리.

The termoriginalismrefers to a judicial interpretation of the law based on a literal reading.

“Of all the irresponsible and inflammatory statements I’ve heard over the last few weeks, and I’ve heard some doozies, this might well be the worst,” Lee, R- 유타, 말했다 "여우 & 친구” on Tuesday.

“If you think about what he is really saying there, 이것의. Markey has essentially said that our Constitution is racist. And an effort to understand it, understand it’s words at the time they were written is itself racist and bigoted. I can’t think of a statement that has a greater tendency to undermine the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. 나는 희망, expect, and demand that Sen. Markey retract his statement. It is irresponsible; he can’t defend that,” Lee said.

DEMOCRATS SAY REPUBLICANS WILL REGRET BARRETT CONFIRMATION, SLAM ‘MANIPULATIONOF SUPREME COURT

Markey ripped the judicial philosophy espoused by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as lawmakers prepared for her confirmation vote on Monday night.

“Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination,” Markey 썼다 트위터에서.

FOX 뉴스 앱을 받으려면 여기를 클릭하십시오.

Lee said that if Barrett’s confirmation is “making the heads of Democrats explode everywhere,” it is because they want the Supreme Court to be “institutions of social policy.”

“Look, for President Trump, this was the SCOTUS trifecta that he managed to pull off. In his first term alone, having put three justices on the U.S. 대법원,” 화요일에. “That doesn’t happen very often and I am glad that it did,”그는 말했다.

“I think he might well have saved the best for last. Justice Barrett is going to be terrific,” Lee added.

“They don’t want the courts to be limited to judging institutions. They want them to be institutions of social change, of social policy, they want them to take debatable matters beyond debate and, so, that is why this isn’t satisfying to them,” Lee said.

Lee went on to say, “They want something much bigger, much grander than what the Constitution actually allows. Justice Barrett sees the elegant simplicity of the fact that you want judges to interpret the law based on what it says.”

폭스 뉴스’ 토마스 바라 비 이 보고서에 기여.

답장을 남겨주세요

귀하의 이메일 주소는 공개되지 않습니다. 필요 입력 사항은 표시되어 있습니다 *

*