Search
Archives
Categories

In her short time in office, Sen. Tina Smith, (DFL-MN), has shown herself to be nothing more than a partisan hack. This week, Sen. Smith didn’t wait to hear who President Trump’s nominee to the US Supreme Court was before she announced that she would oppose whoever President Trump nominated.

Karin Housley noticed Smith’s actions and decisions, then highlighted them in this email:

Tina Smith is showing again why she is the definition of partisan politics. Even before President Trump announced who he would nominate to replace the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Tina Smith announced she WOULD NOT support the President’s choice. Then, MOMENTS after President Trump’s announcement, Tina Smith said she’d join the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Jeff Merkley to vote NO on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A no vote without as much as a hearing!

This is the kind of close-minded thinking that is dangerous for our country. Democrats are willing to ignore what’s right to support their broken agenda.

Close-mindedness is just part of the problem. First, what criteria did Smith use in reaching that decision? Did she use any substantive criteria to reach that decision? Did she just follow Sen. Schumer’s orders?

If she just follows Sen. Schumer’s orders, doesn’t that mean that Sen. Smith is nothing more than a piece of the machine? Doesn’t that mean that Sen. Schumer and Sen. Smith have abandoned the principles that once made the US Senate the most prestigious deliberative body in the world? Is Sen. Smith so hardened in her opinions that she isn’t even willing to listen to others?

That’s what I’d call a shill. Tell me the difference between Sen. Smith and Sen. Schumer. Will she always take Sen. Schumer’s orders on the most important matters? Apparently, she will. That’s disturbing. Minnesotans don’t need another political operative representing Sen. Schumer in the Senate. Minnesotans need someone who will represent us in the Senate.

2 Responses to “Sen. Smith’s disgusting partisanship”

  • eric z says:

    Good for Tina. Turmp picks disasters, than trades them in, which works on his cabinet. On the court, disasters persist; witness John Danforth’s hand in things.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Gorsuch isn’t a disaster. He just isn’t an outcome-based jurist that you prefer.

    In lawsuits, the jurists are supposed to determine only whether the law is constitutional. If the law is constitutional but is bad policy, SCOTUS should rule it constitutional. They aren’t supposed to rule that a law should be changed to make it better. That’s Congress’s job.

Leave a Reply