On Saturday’s Velshi, MSNBC host Ali Velshi collaborated with Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) to attack Amy Coney Barrett. Following the media’s absurd, Orwellian, and sudden reaction to Barrett using the term “sexual preference,” Velshi praised Hirono for taking Barrett “to task after she used an offensive term” and set up Hirono to go on a deranged rant where she declared Barrett “dangerous” for being an originalist.
Velshi introduced his guest by following that leftist media’s narrative that the term has long been seen as offensive: “My next guest took Amy Coney Barrett to task after she used an offensive term while discussing LGBTQ rights during the confirmation hearing.”
The term being “offensive” is a new phenomenon because Joe Biden used it in May of this year, Ruth Bader Ginsburg used it in 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) used it in 2017, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) has used it multiple times, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta did so in 2018, and it was used recently by both the Huffington Post and The Atlantic.
It was even utilized in an interview on September 25th by a gay rights advocate in the gay rights magazine The Advocate. But it makes sense that the term has been used interchangeably because preference is a synonym of orientation. Since the Democrats and the media can’t attack Barrett for her credentials and personal life, they have resorted to ridiculous attacks on her vocabulary.
As those like our friend Steve Krakauer has noted, Hirono's actions instantaneously led to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary changing the meaning of the word "preference" (even though it had recently been used by Democrats and news outlets).
Velshi suggested that Barrett used the term because she plans to assault the rights of the LGBTQ community:
Let me ask you about this. There may be many Americans who, maybe for the first time, were confronted with that discussion about sexual preference versus sexual orientation and there may actually be many Americans who use the term sexual preference without realizing the -- the implications of it or what it implied. It’s different for a judicial candidate though. It’s different for a -- a -- a candidate to the Supreme Court bench who may be hearing cases that apply to the LGBTQ community.
Hirono, who disgustingly hounded Barrett about whether or not she has ever committed sexual assault, fearmongered about Barrett trying to take away LGBTQ rights and demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge on Constitutional theory for a Senator on the Judiciary Committee:
And as I mentioned in -- in my questioning, she did not use those terms accidentally. Those are terms used by people who are not supportive of LGBTQ rights. And in fact, your previous guest said that she -- Amy Barrett will take the Supreme Court way to the right. Probably even more to the right of Scalia who wrote the major dissent on all of the right pieces. So one of the, I think, precedents that will come up for this court because two justices, Thomas and Alito, have already signaled that the seminal case, Obergefell, that allowed gay marriage -- they said there’s no Constitutional basis for that decision. And that is why -- Obergefell -- I think will be a case where she will not support the gay rights position. It’s -- it’s also, Ali, her position on precedent because she believes that every justice should decide for herself what the Constitution requires. And if the precedent conflicts with that assessment, then she would be a good candidate to overturn the precedent.
Perhaps Hirono should read some basic law textbooks because originalism (which is the theory that Barrett subscribes to) has nothing to do with judges ruling as they like. It is the idea judges should rule as the Constitution and the law mandate they should.
Velshi and Hirono then combined to meltdown about the alleged possibility of Barrett working to overturn progressive policies and court decisions:
VELSHI: So things like the Affordable Care Act, that’s really real. This is not abstraction.
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: They will vote on this the week after the election. The federal government who is -- who actually in most cases would be in court defending its own policy, it has joined the fight against the Affordable Care Act.
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: Obergefell, Roe v. Wade, these things are not abstractions. These are actually real things.
HIRONO: Yes.
Velshi then wondered if “there is anything to be done” about Barrett passing the Senate Judiciary Committee, to which Hirono responded by claiming Republicans need to “actually grow a conscious”:
Look, if two Republicans actually grow a conscious or on that committee, one Republican, then we could stop this nomination but as we’ve seen for four years, the Republicans are very busy kowtowing to this President. So, you know, I think it’s still important for the voters of -- and the --and the candidates -- for the Senators who are up for a re-election and hold their feet to the fire because the Republicans have done a total 180 on letting the voters decide who the next president will be. And so they should be held accountable.
Though you, NewsBusters readers, already know this, it deserves to be reiterated: MSNBC is not a news network but a left-wing forum to make deranged accusations towards those they disagree with.
This DNC-TV was brought to viewers by Allstate and Kraft. Let them know here if you think they should be sponsoring this content.
Read the full October 17th transcript here:
MSNBC's Velshi
10/17/20
8:30:35 AMALI VELSHI: My next guest took Amy Coney Barrett to task after she used an offensive term while discussing LGBTQ rights during the confirmation hearing. Listen to this.
(Cuts to Clip)
AMY CONEY BARRETT: I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
[SCREEN WIPE]
SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. [SCREEN WIPE] So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.
(Cuts to live)
VELSHI: Joining me now is the Democratic Senator from Hawaii. Mazie Hirono, she is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is set to cast her vote on whether or not to confirm Judge Barrett next Thursday. Aloha, Senator, good to see you --
HIRONO: Aloha.
VELSHI: -- again.
HIRONO: Good morning.
VELSHI: Let me ask you about this. There may be many Americans who, maybe for the first time, were confronted with that discussion about sexual preference versus sexual orientation and there may actually be many Americans who use the term sexual preference without realizing the -- the implications of it or what it implied. It’s different for a judicial candidate though. It’s different for a -- a -- a candidate to the Supreme Court bench who may be hearing cases that apply to the LGBTQ community.
HIRONO: Of course. And as I mentioned in -- in my questioning, she did not use those terms accidentally. Those are terms used by people who are not supportive of LGBTQ rights. And in fact, your previous guest said that she -- Amy Barrett will take the Supreme Court way to the right, probably even more to the right of Scalia who wrote the major dissent on all of the gay rights case. So one of the, I think, precedents that will come up for this court because two justices, Thomas and Alito, have already signaled that the seminal case, Obergefell, that allowed gay marriage -- they said there’s no constitutional basis for that decision. And that is why Obergefell -- I think -- will be a case where she will not support the gay rights position.
VELSHI: So --
HIRONO: It’s -- it’s also, Ali, her position on precedent because she believes that every justice should decide for herself what the Constitution requires. And if the precedent conflicts with that assessment, then she would be a good candidate to overturn the precedent.
VELSHI: So --
HIRONO: Very dangerous.
VELSHI: So things like the Affordable Care Act, that’s really real. This is not abstraction.
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: They will vote on this the week after the election.
HIRONO: Right.
VELSHI; The federal government who is -- who actually in most cases would be in court defending its own policy, it has joined the fight against the Affordable Care Act.
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: Obergefell, Roe v. Wade, these things are not abstractions. These are actually real things.
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: But next Thursday there is likely to be a vote in the committee along party lines to advance her nomination to the Senate. Is there anything to be done about that?
VELSHI: Senator, I want to ask you about the SCOTUS is also -- the Supreme Court is also going to hear a case about excluding undocumented immigrants from census. Now this is a major -- difficult because undocumented immigrants often don't want to complete the census because they fear that it’ll connect them to law enforcement. But the fact is a census that undercounts Americans becomes very dangerous --
HIRONO: Yes.
VELSHI: -- because of federal funds that are not assigned based on the number of people who are actually in a place. S, if you’re deciding hospitals, roads, and ambulances, you actually know -- have to know the number of people, not the number of citizens who are in a given place.
HIRONO: Exactly. And the Constitution requires in the census that every person, not every citizen, every person be counted. And already the Supreme Court has decided to go along with the administration and shortening the time for the census which means that it will lead to undercounting and therefore, a lot of communities in need will not get the resources. I mean, there’s something like a trillion dollars in resources that are determined by the census count. So that's exactly what this administration wants to do. They want to do everything they can to make sure that undocumented people are not counted and in fact he’s already saying that’s -- that -- what -- what he wants to happen with the census analysis.
