Congressman Michael Guest submitted this column. He represents Mississippi's Third Congressional District.
On the second morning of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett surprised the nation with a simple gesture. Typically, in a congressional hearing, individuals giving testimony will bring catalogues of notes, references, and relevant information they can refer to when questioned. There’s little that is off-limits in a judicial nomination hearing, so individuals who appear before the committee often come equipped with talking points and sound bites to counter particularly difficult questioning.
However, when Senator John Cornyn of Texas
asked Judge Barrett what she had been referring to in her testimony,
Judge Barrett responded with an eye-opening move. She held up a blank
notepad. She
came equipped only with her wit and professionalism. But no amount of
notes could have added to her esteemed qualifications.
With her un-impeachable background, she
didn’t need talking points, because there were no accusations that could
throw her off. With her experience as a judge and professor in the law,
she was prepared
to answer any question on precedent or established law.
What can anyone say to challenge Barrett’s
qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court? She exemplifies the
American dream. She grew up in New Orleans and attended Rhodes College
in Memphis. She
earned a scholarship to attend law school at Notre Dame, where she
finished first in her class and served as the executive editor of the
Notre Dame Law Review. After graduation she clerked at the Supreme Court
and taught at Notre Dame, the University of Virginia,
and George Washington University law schools.
In 2017, she was nominated to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. During her confirmation hearing, she was
challenged for her deeply held religious beliefs. Judge Barrett grew up
in a Catholic
home, attended an all-girls Catholic high school, and actively lives
out her faith. Judge Barrett’s strong Christian beliefs were one of the
main points of opposition to her nomination and were highlighted when
California Senator Diane Feinstein proclaimed,
“the dogma lives loudly within you and that’s of concern.” In spite of
Senator Feinstein’s attacks, she received bipartisan confirmation.
Three years later, following the death of
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump chose her to fill the vacancy. As
she was in 2017, she is still very well qualified. She has received
support from a
wide range of legal experts and has displayed the impartiality that is
necessary in a Supreme Court Justice.
That has not stopped Democrats from attacking
her with bizarre questions about her background, legal acumen, and
personal life. While some Democratic senators questioned her
impartiality as a judge
and her ability to set aside political pressure to rule on issues
before the court, the attacks hold little weight, considering that the
American Bar Association has given her its highest rating of “well
qualified” based on her integrity, professional competency,
and judicial temperament.
Even more impressive, Barrett stood steadfast
against these attacks on her ability to be fair and impartial. She
acknowledged that she agrees with Justice Scalia that “a judge must
apply the law
as written, not as judges wishes it were.” In an exchange with Senator
Amy Klobuchar, Judge Barrett said, “no one has elicited from me any
commitment in a case,” and later added, “I’m 100% committed to judicial
independence from political pressure.”
Congressional Democrats fear Barrett and
therefore attempt to paint her as malicious. That's because, for
decades, liberals have used the federal courts to advance their
progressive agenda without
accountability. Democrats have shown repeatedly that if they cannot
pass legislation through Congress, they will use the Supreme Court to
make laws for them. What scares them the most is that, with the
confirmation of Judge Barrett, they will no longer be
able to use the courts to establish law that is too unpopular with the
American people to pass Congress.
Democrats fear Barrett and other judges like
her for their originalist and textualist approach to the law -- their
belief that the legislating should be left to the legislative branch,
and that justices
should not simply impose their personal beliefs over the Constitution.
If confirmed, Barrett would represent a significant shift away from
activist justices who legislate from the bench. She would help restore
the accountablility in government that the founding
fathers intended.
Senate Democrats will do everything they can
to prevent her confirmation, not because she is unqualified to serve,
but because her accession to the high court would force them to control
Congress
instead of just the Judicial Branch. What they fear most is the idea
that they would have to answer to the voters consistently for the laws
they advocate.
In truth, everyone should be thrilled with
Barrett's nomination, not only for her outstanding credentials, but also
for what her confirmation would mean for our nation. It is my hope that
her confirmation
represents a return of our republic to a healthier style of governance,
one where every law passed is done so by elected officials who are held
accountable by the people who elected them.
Michael Guest represents Mississippi's third congressional district.
37 comments:
I never understood why 1% of the population had such a large representation on the Supreme Court. I believe the judges should reflect the population and their interests. Having three 1%ers on the bench never seemed quite right and explains a lot of the unpopular decisions that represented the interests of Globalism instead of the US Constitution. Amy Coney Barrett is helping to restore the balance.
"[B]izarre questions about her background, legal acumen, and personal life"
The mere fact that Guest considers these questions bizarre is a bit disturbing. A confirmation hearing is a job interview for the highest court in the country.
And yet, he's wowed by a person not taking notes.
Perhaps he should be shocked that a person without notes was unable to even answer a simple question about the first Amendment.
They are going to regret ramming Coney on the court. My guess is that the last 3 will be impeached. Once the Dems take over they will be exposed.
11:34... even if the DonkeyCrats maintain their majority in the House of Rep, there is no way that they get a super majority in the Senate to remove any Justice from the Supreme Court. And even if the Dems take over, what exactly will they expose? The fact that the Senate didn't give it's consent to Obama's pick Garland, but did give it's consent to Trump's pick Barrett as the Constitution dictates?
Get a new tin hat 11:34. Don't look out your window as you will faint in fear at seeing all the black helicopters circling your home!
The truth rings loud in Congressman Michael Guest words!
Guest hits the nail on the head when he states if Democrats don't get their way in congress they jump to the court system.
While lifer Bennie Thompson totally drinks the Democratic kool-aid. No wonder the Delta area is so frigging poor. Look who runs it in congress. BT. When are people going to realize if the same old thing hasn't worked in 30 years what do they have to lose by trying something different?
I hear the voice of "meathead" from "All in the family", again' as I read some of these comments.
11:34, how about when Trump wins reelection and all the evil/corrupt Demonrats are exposed, tried, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms?
Trump 2020, MAGA!!!!
@ 11:34 There is zero chance the democrats would try to impeach a Supreme Court Justice based on his/her conservation values. No Justice has been impeached since 1805, and he was acquitted in the senate.
Neither party nominates anybody to be an impartial judge. Nothing is as useless to a political party as an impartial judge. I can agree with much of what the man says until he gets to that self-righteous bullshit about the Dems trying to push their agenda through the courts and the Repubs do not. Everybody wants a judge who calls my low pitch a strike.
Michael Guest! I kind of remember that guy. What’s he doing these days?
4 years ago, President Obama nominated someone for the Supreme Court in his last year. That nomination was never even considered.
Now, those same Republicans who didnt consider Obama's pick are now going to confirm someone with a week to go before an election for President.
politics and the truth rarely mix--no matter than little letter next to the name...
11:48 When have Repubs not run to the Court system when they don’t get their way??? How many years have they been battling the ACA in court??? Take off your blinders. Both parties run to the courts when they don’t get their way. All this talk about the courts should not legislate just depends on the issue and who the law favors.
@12:29
Those Republicans gained power through a complete grassroots rebuke of Obama and the Democrat Party. As evidenced by the election of Donald Trump. As we can see today, the Obama White House was rotten, lousy with corruption. Biden and Clinton were both clearly peddling their influence for cash. Even if Obama himself remained clean, it was impossible for him to not know what was happening in his administration unless he was completely incompetent.
We used to have statesmen as Congressmen and Senators, but now we're blessed with Republican whiners who only slam Democrats and a Democratic who doesn't appear to do anything for anyone.
"Elections have consequences" Who said it?
Now take that arrogant attitude when it's not their turn and the Democrats can't stand it. Next time they will just move the goal post. This whole "give us what we want or you'll regret it" mentality is what got the current president elected and will most likely get him elected again. It's time the pendulum swings to the right for a wile to get things centered back up. You can try to buck it all you want, but the country is speaking.
If it's good/decent they are against it, if it's evil/perverted they are for it - Democrats.
12:29, didn't your hero Obama say that elections have consequences?
Guest needs to stay in his lane. Or run for Senate.
And that's probably what all of this publicity seeking is about.
The Republicans have 2 enemies The Bias News & Democrats.
Republican whiners? You see the people who wanted Diane Fienstein's head after giving Lindsey Graham a hug after the confirmation hearing was over? Shiff, Pelosi, Schumer, are all whiners.
Donald Trump's most loud and loyal base is made up of Anti-Obama birthers. That group was so utterly incensed knowing that a Black man was in the White House for 2 terms was left determined to support the candidate who demonstrated the most hostile aversion to Obama and Trump gave it to them in spades. But just look what he as given US in the deal.
" 4 years ago, President Obama nominated someone for the Supreme Court in his last year. That nomination was never even considered.
Now, those same Republicans who didnt consider Obama's pick are now going to confirm someone with a week to go before an election for President" .
____________
Well 12:29 PM, to simplify, I'll quote a 1980's TV badass:
' Nobody gives you power. Real power is something you TAKE !'
(Jock Ewing to his little boy Bobby about the Oil Industry . . .
TV classic "Dallas" , CBS circa 1981)
My point ?
Like it or not, the orange man still has power and Ms. Barrett will be on the Supreme Court.
I will vote for President Trump and will probably vote for Cindy Hyde-Smith. I will vote against Michael Guest because of his vote condemning QAnon. I know he will win, but Michael Guest needs to realize that his constituents don't want him voting for scams pushed by AOC and Nancy Pelosi.
A vote Guest or Smith is a vote to be in the minority.
" probably vote for Cindy Hyde-Smith ".
I'm not a big fan of her either, but I will vote for her.
It's comical when all Mike Espy can say: "I was the first Black (this or that) . . . and I was indicted but acquitted".
Yeah, Mike . . . that's a damn impressive opening statement.
12:29 PM said
“4 years ago, President Obama nominated someone for the Supreme Court in his last year. That nomination was never even considered.
Now, those same Republicans who didnt consider Obama's pick are now going to confirm someone with a week to go before an election for President.
politics and the truth rarely mix--no matter than little letter next to the name…”
Very true 12:29 PM. And like damned near every single politician alive, ole Mitch lied like a broken clock when he gave the reason for not considering Obama’s pick.
And the hell of it is the truth would have been just fine i.e. he could have said “look Dems, we’re not ever going to stoop as low as you all did with Bork and Thomas (and afterwards Kavanaugh) by just making up ball faced lies to keep your picks from the SCOTUS…but we do control the senate right now and we will postpone until after the election because if we win will will get to put our pick on the court.”
But no, ole Mitch had to come up with some horse shit about letting the voters decide.
Oh, or he could have just said we’re going to do exactly what you lying Mfers would do.
4 more justices will be appointed with little debate
An abused system in turn gets abused
11:25 - Please let us know what first amendment question she was unable to answer.
The Republicans will likely need a clear majority on the Supreme Court so as to void the Democrats' attempt to steal the election. I see no reason the Trump administration shouldn't do anything but play hardball with these Dems, who have lied and obstructed all the way through the first four years, whenever the latest ploy failed they seemed to have the next one already prepared.
The interesting question now will be how much violence will we see when Trump is re-elected, because that is coming.
10:48 - "I believe the judges should reflect the population and their interests."
Nope. Judges should judge what the facts and the law are.
"Get a new tin hat 11:34. Don't look out your window as you will faint in fear at seeing all the black helicopters circling your home!" I wish they'd go over there. They've been bothering me for quite a while now.
10:30: that planet you live on must be ruby red. Did it ever occur to you it might be Hell?
Obama was solely responsible for losing the senate by pushing the country hard left. No one was surprised he couldn’t get Garland on the court, the media’s pearl-clutching notwithstanding. Coney Barrett is the product of the same thing: post Obama, all that matters is brute political power. Dems made their bed and are living with the effects of their bad governance. They may win back the senate and the presidency and they will make the same mistakes all over again. We desperately need wisdom and restraint in politics but it just isn’t to be found these days
@10:48 AM - please retake Political Science 101 and Civics 101.
Don't confuse the legislative branch with the judicial branch.
10:17 I saw a Civics teacher say on TV that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1777.
Civics is as dead as journalism.
I'm a Democrat, but I respected Michael Guest when he was the district attorney. I thought he was an honorable attorney. But the minute he supported his colleagues after they had promised to not put in a Supreme Court justice in an election year, I lost all respect for him. I now know that he is a fork-tongued liar just like all politicians. First Gregg Harper and now Michael Guest, so I guess Washington changes people's values.
Post a Comment