Unethical Quote Of The Week: Senator Kamala Harris

“Well, I mean, I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say yes, we can.”

Democratic Presidential nominee hopeful Senator Kamala Harris, responding to Joe Biden’s 100% correct observation that a President could not ban so-called “assault weapons” by executive order as Harris had pledged she would, due to the Constitution.

When I was preparing yesterday’s post on the ABC Democratic candidates debate, this statement, which made my head explode at the time it was delivered, was supposed to have a prominent place. Then I couldn’t find it in the transcript. Why? I’m an idiot, that’s why. Somehow I got it in my head that the speaker was Elizabeth Warren, not Harris, so I was searching the transcript for her, and not finding the exchange. Finally I gave up.

Luckily Ann Althouse was similarly nauseated by the same Harris quote, and posted about it on her blog later in the day. Among the truly scary statements, and there were many of them, during the debate (ask your Democratic friends if they can name a single similarly outrageous policy-related quote during any of the 2015 and 2016 debates  by candidates of either party) I rank Harris’s as #1, followed by Beto’s epic “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47…” and Biden’s ridiculous “Nobody should be in jail for a nonviolent crime” statement. (Incidentally, he launched a fun parlor game: see if you can top other players with the most sinister character who would have avoided prison time under Joe’s formula. My favorite: Al Capone).

Since Ann was not so addled that she couldn’t locate Harris’s quote (like me), I’ll quote her assessment of what the California Senator said…

[I]t’s so cavalier about the rule of law, and it wrecks the foundation for criticizing Trump. In fact, it sounds like Trump. It sounds like the way a businessman (like Trump) might talk to his lawyers: ‘Here’s what I want to do. Tell me that I can. If you’re going to be telling why I can’t, I want a different lawyer….’ And that’s for the people to decide. Do you want someone who visualizes the Constitution as a barrier to things he’d otherwise like to do or do you want the man or woman who finds a way?

The transcript cannot convey the feeling and expression in Kamala Harris’s “Well, I mean, I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say yes, we can.” It is so awful, so lightweight and dismissive of constitutional law (and without any of the dignity of constitutional critique).

And Harris is a lawyer, unlike Trump. I’m quite sure that the President has no idea what is or isn’t Constitutional in many—most?— matters, but Harris, as a long-time prosecutor, is supposed to know better. Her statement is either a deliberate misrepresentation crafted for the gullible and ignorant (this is why, I think, I filed the quote under “Warren, Elizabeth,” since intentional misrepresentation of the law is her MO), or Harris just isn’t very bright, which is the impression I have had of her for a long time.

Either way, the quote also reflects the ease with which this Democratic Party embraces totalitarian methods and philosophies—while calling President Trump an autocrat and a threat to democracy.

17 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Senator Kamala Harris

  1. In your defense, though, most of these folks all march to the beat of the same drummer so they might as well be clones. Easy to muddle up.

  2. Senator Kamala Harris for President, she’s a pompous progressive, she’s a black woman, she’s a social justice warrior, she’s ant-constitution, she’s woke, she’s panders to all the appropriate identity tribes, and she’s an imbecile; sounds to me like she’s the perfect Democratic Party nominee for modern progressives in the 21st century.

    What could go wrong?

  3. Trump makes a comment on tbe campaign trail to limit entrance from some predominantly Muslim countries makes him a racist why doesn’t this and other comments warrant a similar type if accustation that she is a dictatorial demagogue.

  4. Harris is cut from the same cloth as Hillary Clinton: Although she is not as bright, her narcissistic view of the presidency and her ability to ignore the Constitution as she pleases makes her unfit to hold office.

  5. That is an alarming parlor game. I do agree there are some crimes that might be better covered in other ways, but prison should always be an outcome in the mix. It should be the consequence peopple want to avoid. Some would not care enough about fines or other penalties. Prison should be a deterrent.

  6. “I’m quite sure that the President has no idea what is or isn’t Constitutional in many—most?— matters”

    That was a pretty low blow. From his Supreme Court case record, it seems that Trump has a better idea of what is Constitutional than federal district and appellate court judges. When Trump has lost, you still wonder if he has a better idea of what is Constitutional than the high court (What is unconstitutional about asking the citizenship but not race, marital status,of the respondent when the point of the census is to apportion representation in Congress?). In a world where federal district court judges from Hawaii feel they have the authority to block terrorist threat travel restrictions NATIONWIDE just because they feel it might cost some tourism dollars in Hawaii and because a policy that discriminates against a person based on nationality is unconstitutional if that country is majority Musilm, but not if it is North Korea or Venezuela, Trump does not seem especially uneducated on the Constitution.

    • I don’t see it as a low blow at all. The President has advisors who he trusts to recommend judges. Do you think he has read any of their opinions? Maybe a two page summary—maybe—but come on now. He has made so, so many statements redolent of Constitutional ignorance that this isn’t even subject to serious debate. The comments about how there should be some way to stop the news media from delivering fake news, all by itself, shows total ignorance of the principles behind the Constitution. His comments about loosening the standards for defamation suits against the news media would have more legitimate arguments behind it, except there is no reason that amount of thought has sparked it. Seriously, do you think if he was asked, “What are your opinions about Sullivan v. New York Times?” he would recognize the case?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.