Mazie Hirono Demonstrates, Once Again, Why Democrats Choosing Justices Is a Bad Idea – Opinion

Hawaii Democrat Senator Mazie Irono could easily be considered one the most radical and extreme leftists in office. This is the same Hirono that decided to vote against the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett by marching up to the Senate dias with arms folded and demanded they put her down as a “hell no” vote. This is the same Hirono that became angered with Barrett for using the term “sexual preference” in relation to the LGBT community but was dismissive of Joe Biden saying it while he was running for president to the point of directly dismissing it.

Hirono, who is now able to affect the selection for a Supreme Court justice after Stephen Breyer leaves, has a chance to do so. Her definition of what it means to be a “good justice” is, quite frankly, not one.

Hirono appeared on MSNBC and suggested that the next court should not care about what the law means but rather rule from the viewpoint of a social justice advocate, according to Daily Wire.

On Wednesday, appearing on MSNBC, Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said she would like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s replacement to “consider the impact … on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on” the law.

Hirono stated, “What I’m looking for is a justice who can be fair and impartial and who does not have an ideological axe to grind, which is what we saw — as far as I’m concerned — in President Trump’s nominees, including to the Supreme Court.”

“So, yes, I am expecting a fight, but there you have it,” she continued, then said, “And I’m looking for someone who’s going to be, not only highly qualified, as all of the people that you already talked about are, but who really brings to the judiciary the kind of diversity that I’d like, that — someone who will consider the impact, the effects of whatever decision-making is on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on,” here she pointed out her desire for the “effects,” digressing, “which I would like them to base it on,” before returning to “law.”

Hirono says that while the Constitution is clear about something, Hirono asks the judge not to focus on it, and rather concentrate on the accomplishment and fulfillment of the Democrat Party agenda. He would prefer the priority of law for Democrats to be the law in the land.

This is a horrific way to rule on any situation since the Democrat Party is not only corrupt beyond all doubt, but also because the Party’s decision-making is based on what works for them at the moment. A nation will be in chaos if it makes decisions that are not stable and places all its importance on power.

Far from her claim, this is hardly a concern for the people and more a concern for her own side’s power, proving once again why Democrats should hardly be trusted to select a proper justice for the Supreme Court, at least in their current state, hijacked by radicals like Hirono.