Even though Senator Dianne Feinstein never went to law school, somehow or other she managed to get a seat on the Judiciary Committee. The disasters of the Bush Administration in no small part were facilitated by her lack of understanding why Article I has primacy in the relationship to Article II. But let’s look at the Bill of Rights, numerically.
1st Amendment: Peaceful assembly seems to be OK with her, unless it is at a rave. Petition of redress is OK, but with onerous reporting requirements. As for the right to free speech, not cool if it involves a flag (she was the “main Democratic sponsor”).
2nd Amendment: Today, she is screaming in bold font against the 2nd Amendment. Not surprising, as she once famously told 60 minutes following the Brady Bill vote, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it.”
3rd Amendment: To her credit, as far as I know she seems OK on the quartering of troops, but that may just be because it hasn’t come up. If it did come up, there would probably need to be thousands of calls to her office as she vacillated on the issue since it centers on privacy rights.
4th Amendment: Just yesterday, she caved on the part about, “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” And she’s been a cheerleader for the Patriot Act.
5th & 6th Amendments: Due process and right to a fair trial have not been her strong suit, either. On her support of the Graham-Levin Amendment, the ACLU writes, “by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government’s use of torture and abuse and other denials of due process.”
7th Amendment: She doesn’t seem to have a problem with findings of fact to be decided by a jury.
8th Amendment: She totally shot to hell any credibility on “cruel and unusaul” during her disgraceful caving on Michael Mukasey
9th Amendment: If she refuses to support the rights that are specifically enumerated, not so much one to trust on all the rest. Which is how she ended up on the wrong side of history by attacking Mayor Gavin Newsom for supporting Marriage Equality.
10th Amendment: If she agrees with state’s rights, she supports them. If not, she doesn’t.
I’m sure I’m missing a number of additional references. Yet my question isn’t so much why it is so difficult to keep track of all her attacks on civil liberties, but why she is on the Judiciary Committee.