Hirono under fire for remarks on Constitution: 'Who the heck would know what our Founding Fathers meant?'
Critics took to Twitter to cite The Federalist Papers as an example
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, is taking heat for remarks arguing there is no way to identify the Founding Fathers' thoughts on key issues when interpreting the Constitution, asking, "Who the heck would know what our Founding Fathers meant?"
The comment came during a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing following last month's Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health and ignited criticism on Twitter after a clip of Hirono's remarks was shared online.
Chaos ensued in the comments, with critics noting the Constitution's "straightforward" language and using The Federalist Papers as another example of what the founders thought.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
SALON REPORTER ARGUES JOE BIDEN IS SIMILAR TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS
"Dumbest and most unread member of Congress. Federalist Papers, maybe?" wrote RedState columnist Buzz Petterson.
Postcast host Dan O'Donnell sounded off as well, responding to Hirono's question by saying, "People who know how to read."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
Former Republican Rhode Island congressional candidate Bob Lancia slammed Hirono, saying she should be "embarrassed" for her remarks, while the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans scathingly alleged that Hirono's reading comprehension must be "abysmally low."
Virginia House of Delegates member Nick Freitas and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to former President Trump, weighed in as well, with Gorka's remarks coming across less subtly by blatantly accusing Hirono of being "dumb as a box of rocks."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
Freitas contrarily employed sarcasm in his reaction, writing, "I know right? If only they had written down…perhaps in numerous books, articles and journals…the nature of the arguments they were making and why."
Additional critics highlighted Hirono's oath to uphold and defend the Constitution while serving in public office and cited her hypocrisy of alleging the document cannot be adequately interpreted with its original intent in the process.