BREAKING: Feinstein Attempts To SKEWER Neil Gorsuch In Confirmation Hearing- His Response Leaves Room SPEECHLESS


| Twitter | Facebook |

Fact Check: Even NeoCons Admit It


Diane Feinstein Uses Fake Legal Term In Attempt To Trick Gorsuch. Sad!

Senator Diane Feinstein, the first Democrat to question the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, immediately launched into a question meant to unhinge and destabilize his support from moderates, conservatives and liberals alike.  It was rather a brilliant tactical move for someone that often dons that facade of the village idiot.  

take our poll - story continues below

Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to AFF updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

She asked him how he felt about Roe v. Wade and then used an invented term–Democrats love to make up fake terms–in order to trap him into saying that he wouldn’t overturn it.  Let’s break it down a bit.

Gorsuch first explained the he was quite familiar with Roe v. Wade when prompted by the Republican Senator from Iowa Chuck Grassley:


“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”


Feinstein didn’t seem content with this answer and since she is the spawn of all things evil, she had good reason to be.  Gorsuch was very careful in his wording but we’ll explain that in just a minute.  Feinstein wanted further clarification on the matter and referenced a statement from President Trump saying that he would appoint someone that would overturn Roe v. Wade.   She wanted Gorsuch to say whether he would overturn it or affirm it given the opportunity.  For a lay person this might be confusing since the statement made by Gorsuch would appear as though he was indicating he would affirm it given the chance.  This is not the case at all.

Gorsuch was careful to say he would treat the precedent in Roe v. Wade the same way all other precedents are handled.  Precedents in the Supreme Court are often overturned. In fact, precedents have been overruled hundreds of times.  Here’s a very incomplete list of such instances when prior precedents were replaced with more (or less) sound judgments.

(Continued Below)

This article triggers Feinstein…And a triggered Feinstein lacks trigger discipline!

Super Precedents Are Like Functioning Socialist Nations: They Don’t Exist

To her credit, Feinstein was quite savvy here and tried to further trap Gorsuch…by using an entirely invented, unconstitutional and logically unsound statement: she wanted Gorsuch to call Roe v. Wade a “super precedent.”

What’s the hell is a super precedent?  Good question.  A super precedent is the term liberals use to pretend that certain precedents can be cemented irrevocably into law.  Essentially, it is a way for liberals to create a permanent ruling for the things they like.  Any logical person can understand why that isn’t an acceptable practice.  If you want something to have permanency, guess what?  That’s what constitutional amendments are for (not that any liberals have actually read the constitution).

Anyways, Gorsuch proved a formidable contender in Feinstein’s game of wicked trickery:

“I have offered no promises on how I’d rule, in any case, to anyone and I don’t think it’s appropriate for a judge to do so,” he said.

And that was quite a rainstorm on the ranting senator’s parade.  Feinstein, of course, didn’t like that so after the hearing she went outside and said some crazy stuff to reporters (see above: her facade of village idiot) about Trump resigning soon.  Being merely a simple political theorist, I can’t say for certain, but I was almost sure that one had to be 35 in order to run for Senate.  Yet all these liberals with the minds of children are filling the chambers.  Degenerate!

If you enjoyed this story, read more on the author’s site: Deplorable DigestMacDonald covers US Policy from a Nationalist’s perspective and is dedicated to making America great again. 

Compliments, questions, or story ideas may be sent to @ TweetBrettMac. on Twitter or emailed to Brett.MacDonald@Aff.News.

Here’s How To Be Sure To Continue Seeing Our Content On Facebook



Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter!

Facebook Has Banned Us!

The leftists at Facebook decided they didn’t like our message, so they removed our page and are censoring us. Help us fight back and subscribe to our newsletter so that you can stay up-to-date with everything Facebook doesn’t want you to see!

Disqus Comments