Dianne Feinstein Tries To Take On Neil Gorsuch And Embarrasses Herself In The Process. Again.

I knew Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a complete hag, but I didn’t realize that she was incredibly stupid too.

You’d think that after her embarrassing “Constitution = Witch Hunts” prat fall yesterday that Feinstein would have sat the bench and let another Democrat humiliate themselves today. But nope – Feinstein is determined to convince everyone in America that she has zero credibility or business being in the US Senate.

At least it makes for quality entertainment. I’ll say that much.

During today’s round of confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch, Feinstein quizzed him on whether or not he believes that Roe v. Wade (the Holiest of Holies for pro-abortion windbags like Feinstein) has a “super-precedent” over anything else.

Granted, I’m no legal scholar. But I have no clue what a “super-precedent” is. Though I didn’t feel too bad about that because Gorsuch – with all of his experience as a district judge and background in law – didn’t seem to be familiar with Feinstein’s made-up terminology either. But he still answered the question as articulate and classy as anyone could, being faced with such a babble of nonsense –

.@SenFeinstein asks Judge #Gorsuch: “Do you view Roe as having super-precedent?” #SCOTUS #SCOTUSnominee pic.twitter.com/pn9bEmbXvG

— CSPAN (@cspan) March 21, 2017

Super-precedent, huh? And this woman is a SENATOR.

Obviously, Feinstein is trying to make a law that was ruled on in the 1970s iron-clad, air-tight, no-one-can-even-touch-it-EVER. But she gets a little sketchy when it comes to amendments that were written in the Constitution FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

@cspan @SenFeinstein to Gorsuch: Abortion is “Super-duper precedent” but Freedom to Exercise Religion & Right to Bear Arms must be curtailed

— The Right Wing M (@TheRightWingM) March 21, 2017

Funny how “precedent” gets forgotten when Democrats talk about gun control and such. But Roe v. Wade? NOPE – you’re not touching that!

Though with mental giants like Dianne Feinstein “defending” baby-killing under the law, it might not be as difficult as we thought.

(h/t Twitchy)