Tim Danahey needed to vent. He watched the Supreme Court nominee the Amy Coney Barrett hearing. He wanted to see this exchange.
Amy Coney Barrett, wrong for SCOTUS
Here is the dialog Tim wanted to see/hear.
Senator: Judge Barrett, you have identified yourself as a Constitutional “originalist” like your mentor, Anton Scalia, correct?
Nominee: Yes
Senator: Would this country be well-served by having nine “originalists” on the Supreme Court?
Nominee: (drinks water, clears throat) I think a diversity of opinions is always a good thing.
Senator: Can you think of a case where your mentor, Justice Scalia, ever wavered from their originalist interpretation of the law?
Nominee: Nothing comes to mind.
Senator: Can you think of any time other originalists like Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh wavered from their originalism?
Nominee: No, sir. Nothing comes to mind but….
Senator: So, effectively, six originalists would not generally reflect a diversity of opinion?
Nominee: I don’t know if that’s true.
Senator: If it is true, then it would be bad for the country to have a bloc of six originalists reflecting a single interpretation on the Supreme Court?
Nominee: I wouldn’t say that.
Senator: Then what number of originalists on the Supreme Court would allow a diversity of interpretations?
Nominee: I can’t answer that.
Senator: Then I can’t support your nomination because, what makes America great lies in our diversity. Diversity of race. Diversity of culture. Diversity of thought. This extends to the diversity of judicial interpretation. Monoculturalism, racial purity, and interpretative litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees have no place in America. I seek a nominee who is balanced. Who understands fairness. Who expresses free thinking. And, Judge Barrett, you are not that nominee.
What are your thoughts? Visit with us at our program Politics Done Right.