Kamala Harris Predicts ‘Destruction The Of Constitution’ If Trump Gets Justice Pick [VIDEO]

dailycaller.com ^ | 6/27/18 | Julia Cohen

[a little elbow grease]

h

California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris said there would be the “destruction of the Constitution” if President Donald Trump got to pick the Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris told Matthews on Wednesday night. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appoint people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Harris’s comment was in response to Matthews asking her what the Supreme Court is “going to look like for the next 30 years.” (RELATED: It Only Took Jeffrey Toobin Three Hours After Justice Kennedy’s Retirement To Talk About Abortion)

“The President’s list of potential SCOTUS nominees are complete non-starters,” Harris tweeted Wednesday. “They are conservative ideologues, not mainstream jurists. We cannot and will not accept them to serve on the highest court in the land.”

[a little elbow grease]

Full Title: Kamala Harris Predicts ‘Destruction The Of Constitution’ If Trump Gets Justice Pick [VIDEO]

Full Leftie Freakout ............

[a little elbow grease]

VIDEO

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/kamala-harris-predicts-destruction-constitution/

[Mark17]

I thought destruction of the constitution is what the leftists want.

[Doogle]

Panic.....

[DoughtyOne]

Dear Kamala;

Trump is going to appoint a strong Constitutionalist. That’s not a way to destroy the Constitution.

You destroy the Constitution by appointing judges who do not abide by it’s tenets.

None of Obama’s appointees do. The Constitution means nothing to them.

We want it to mean something to our judges.

But then you knew that...

[a little elbow grease]

The President’s list of potential SCOTUS nominees are complete non-starters. They are conservative ideologues, not mainstream jurists. We cannot and will not accept them to serve on the highest court in the land.

— Kamala Harris June 27, 2018

[Mastador1]

It's funny, the people with the least respect for the Constitution, that wanted it tread as a living document so they can warp it to support their depravity warn us about it's destruction if a Constitutionalist Juror is appointed.

Since when did a communist want anything but the destruction of the Constition?

[DoughtyOne]

BTW folks: Let me take this moment to apologize to the nation for foisting off another ignorant “Jane Curtain” for a U. S. Senator. And today I’m addressing Harris.

[Kickass Conservative]

Kamala Harris has proven once again that she knows more about Willie Brown’s Dick than she does the Constitution of the United States of America.

[wbarmy]

Just like on DU, the hyperbole is over the top.

They claim that we are now living under a theocratic monarchy, that Trump will suspend civil liberties, etc.

[a little elbow grease]

"I thought destruction of the constitution is what the leftists want."

__________

Well said. They've been doing it for at least sixty years.

[MadLibDisease]

The Constitution that leftists say is a living breathing document that changes with the times?

[Richard Axtell]

The truth is just an anathema to these people. Never get in the water with a shark, and never get in to a discussion with these people, they are immune to sanity.

[a little elbow grease]

"Panic"

_________________

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

This is like Michael Moore saying “the donuts will be eaten if anybody but me keeps an eye on them”

[a little elbow grease]

"Dear Kamala;

Trump is going to appoint a strong Constitutionalist. That’s not a way to destroy the Constitution.

You destroy the Constitution by appointing judges who do not abide by it’s tenets.

None of Obama’s appointees do. The Constitution means nothing to them.

We want it to mean something to our judges.

But then you knew that..."

_____________________

.... beautifully said. Thank you for that.

[Trillian]

Then they’d be all for it if that were true.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[mindburglar]

It’s written in cursive!

[Mustangman]

I agree with you entirely. Did you see the descenting views on the travel ban case? They weren’t legal analysis....they were simply rhetoric and crisiticism. I wonder if the desenting judges realize they aren’t there to sit in judgment of a policy, only to judge whether said policy is legal? They truly came across as small minded legal nitwits when I read their analysis..

Look.......People can consider whether the travel ban was wise policy or not when it comes time to vote....and that includes the judges. If you don’t like the policy, vote against it next election. But, the wisdom of any policy is the last thing and SCJ should be considering when on the bench....and I mean that seriously.