Elizabeth Warren Questions Legitimacy Of Supreme Court

Elizabeth Warren Questions Legitimacy Of Supreme Court

Elizabeth Warren Questions Legitimacy Of Supreme Court

Elizabeth Warren decided that questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, our Constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts was THE WAY TO GO during Thursday afternooon’s impeachment circus.

Evidently discussing her doggo and pandering to trans activists earlier in the day didn’t give her the polling bump she wanted, so she decided swinging for the cheap seats would give her traction.

Now several in the media are trying to say that the Chief Justice couldn’t hold it together during and after his reading of the question. You know what? I’d venture to say that one of his reactions was along the lines of “ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!”

Photo Credit: VG Darleen Click

This is The Hill’s take:

“The question appeared to create discomfort for Roberts, whose role as the trial’s presiding officer requires him to read senators’ queries aloud — even those raising questions about potential damage to his own legitimacy, or that of the judicial institution he has assiduously sought to shield from the political fray.”

Oh, so the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment hearing would be damaging to the Court’s legitimacy if the vote swings to Trump? That’s the inference I’m getting from this.

Notice how Adam Schiff, after a long pause, tried to help Lizzie backpedal? He did so in a very low key manner. Compare that with his defense of his staffers being smeared.

You know, the impeachment proceedings have been a circus wrapped up in a dumpster fire these last few days. However, we are coming to the end and I’m seeing that the desperate flame throwing is going to get more intense. Why else would we have Rep. Hakeem Jeffries decide to inform us that Democrats aren’t guilty of foreign influence because they PAID for the Steele dossier??!! 

As with Jeffries and Shifty Schiff, Lizzie is swinging for the fences in hopes that she’ll land something and get a bump in the polls.

Going back to the video above, Schiff declares that running a trial without witnesses doesn’t reflect badly upon the Chief Justice, it reflects badly on “us.”

Well Lizzie, this entire circus DOES reflect badly upon us.

First, this impeachment has been pending since election night. Democrats have been searching for any hook to be THE THING that means impeachment! The problem is, Schiff and crew have had to revise what constitutes impeachment at least five times.

Secondly, Lizzie’s question regarding the Supreme Court’s legitimacy not only shows she doesn’t care about the seriousness of these proceedings, it also shows how willing she is to throw our Republic under the bus. And people who don’t know our Constitution are cheering.

Yeppers! It’s definitely ‘outside the box thinking’ for Lizzie and her fans who are not only Constitutional illiterates, they are willing to throw this country into the ditch as long as Bad Orange Man is booted.

Furthermore, Sethie, Chief Justice Roberts isn’t the JUDGE as in a Law and Order trial, the rules of this procedure are very different and it would behoove you to study up before opining in the future.

Here’s a reminder for Lying Liz regarding these proceedings. 

“They refused to have courts validate their subpoenas, refused to let the GOP call their own witnesses, and suppressed information that was not helpful to their impeachment cause. Of the 78 days of the impeachment proceedings, they denied the president any right to counsel or due process for 71 days of them.

In general, the procedure was rushed and information that could have helped them seem more credible was never sought or acquired.”

Exactly. The House Dems wanted impeachment so badly that they weren’t willing to wait for the courts to make decisions regarding subpoenas. They ALL know it. Which is why Lizzie’s question landed with a thud yesterday.

Does she know the question is a dud? Given the fact that she happily tweeted about it…

Yes, major self awareness FAIL here. Oh wait… this was a new part of her aggressive strategy? Well, it needs work. A LOT of work. Especially since her disinformation campaign is already hitting multiple snags. And key Republican Senators, Lamar Alexander, aren’t on board with her impeachment palooza.

Dear Elizabeth Lyin’ Lizzie Warren, our Supreme Court is legitimate. Our Constitution says so. You will just have to deal with that and play by the rules our Founders put in place.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: OwlishArts via Flickr, cropped and modified

Written by

  • Mike says:

    Responding to Seth Abramson: Yes, Seth, it is a sham trial. It was the Democrats, in their haste to impeach on any grounds they could think of, that made it so.

  • GWB says:

    he’s knowingly, as an attorney and judge, presiding over a sham trial
    I concur wholeheartedly!
    But it’s been a sham since being initiated in the House. And honestly, Chief Justice Roberts should have declared from the beginning that the articles were Constitutionally insufficient since they allege no actual crimes.

    as long as Bad Orange Man is booted
    Yes. If they can make any of these methods work, they can use it over and over again to ensure they never lose power and can enact their agenda heedless of the legal restrictions of the Constitution.

    they weren’t willing to wait for the courts to make decisions regarding subpoenas
    I disagree. It wasn’t the waiting. It was fear that they would lose the argument.

    You will just have to deal with that and play by the rules our Founders put in place.
    No, she won’t. Because her constituents won’t hold her accountable for this crap. And the Constitution has to be enforced by us, or it, ultimately, won’t get enforced at all.

    • Micha Elyi says:

      “… Chief Justice Roberts should have declared from the beginning…”

      I disagree. As Nina Bookout, the author of the article that heads this web page pointed out, “Chief Justice Roberts isn’t the JUDGE as in a Law and Order trial”. The Chief Justice presides over the Senate when it tries an impeachment of the President; the Chief Justice does not sit as a judge. (The 100 Senators are effectively the judges.)

      “…the Constitution has to be enforced by us… ultimately”

      That I agree with. I wish it were otherwise but politics ain’t bean bag and in politics what one can get away with is whatever one gets away with. That’s why eternal vigilance* is the price of liberty. Citizens must not let dishonest behavior go without imposing consequences.

      Did Trump break laws? Apparently not, but he may have clumsily bruised some. Yet so far in his presidency I’m not seeing in Trump a pattern of evil intent that could make his habit of being fast and loose with the rules constraining the exercise of presidential power rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would demand removal from office even if no single particular act violated any grave statutory criminal law.

      * vigilance isn’t merely sleeping with one eye open–it’s an active interventionist vigilance, think of the Guardian Angels or an alert citizen calling the police because a person she doesn’t recognize is behaving suspiciously around her neighbor’s front door or a neighbor who is banging on your door late at night because your house is on fire

  • zenman says:

    Doesn’t the Supreme Court sit in judgement over cases without hearing from witnesses all the time?

    One would think , the entire record of House investigation (minus the interviews kept TOP SECRET by the House managers) are part of this impeachment proceeding.

    To call this political process a trial makes a mockery of our justice system.

    • Micha Elyi says:

      When the Supreme Court acts as the court of original jurisdiction rather than as a court of appeal from the decision of a lower court then yes, the Supreme Court hears from witnesses.

      Yes, impeachment and the trial of an impeachment is a political process. Has it occurred to you that the word “trial” has more meanings than what you see in episodes of Law & Order or Perry Mason? (The Framers of the Constitution didn’t watch much TV.)

  • csmats says:

    When I saw this my first impression was that Warren had once again planted both feet firmly in her mouth, but then I wondered if she perhaps did it to torpedo the witness issue by (1) turning off Roberts considering the Democrats would argue strongly for him to be the tie-breaking vote in the event of a 50-50 split on witnesses, and (2) turning off Murkowski, who had been signaling irritation at the harsh partisan nature of the trial. Neither of the two would relish weeks or months more of the type of scorched earth rhetoric Warren had just grenade-lobbed into the whole kerfuffle.

    At that moment the state of play was that there were two Republican votes for witnesses (Romney and Collins) and, with Alexander having announced his no vote the previous night, only Murkowski’s vote was in play, which would lead to a 50-50 split if she voted yes. So Warren’s hand grenade was a direct hit on the two people in whose hands the witness issue then rested. Seems like that might be a bit more than mere coincidence.

    Why would Warren torpedo her own side, you ask? Maybe to try to get back to Iowa this weekend? We already know from many instances of her past behavior that she’s treacherous enough to stoop to anything she thinks will benefit her personally.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner