My opening remarks to Amy Coney Barrett if I were a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Thank you, Ms. Barrett, for coming to this dreary, dark chamber today. Sincere apologies for the posturing, virtue signaling, and religious snark.
Decorum dictates that we ask lawyerly questions to which you respond with lawyerly evasive gravitas. But we senators are far more interested in making you look brilliant or foolish so that we will look good to our funders and those we pretend to represent.
Condescension and arrogance behind the mask of protocol.
I’m sure you understand. You’ve been playing your part well, deflecting questions about abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and legal issues related to the upcoming election.
Let’s be real. Roe v. Wade will be overturned with or without you, and if you were to rule against your supporters on other key matters, they would throw endless temper tantrums, as they are desperately trying to maintain control, especially since demography and public opinion are threatening their power.
I have some good and bad news for you, Ms. Barrett.
The bad news first. When it comes time to vote whether or not to confirm you, I will firmly vote `no.`
In addition to our disagreements about the legality of various policies, I believe that if your originalist view of our constitution — resembling a revered, sweet-smelling corpse — was in vogue in the 1950s, “separate but equal” might still reign throughout our land, thus delaying and perhaps stalling civil rights of African Americans, Latinx, Asian Americans, people with disabilities, LGBTQ folk, and others from underrepresented groups.
No, our Constitution is a vibrant document full of life, energy, and with a flexible spirit that allows those inevitable tensions among amendments to be managed with empathy, grace, and justice. A dead constitution, no matter its scent, supports the powerful over the weak because of the disproportionate impact of money in politics.
Wealth behind the mask of trickle-down justice.
Profit behind the mask of principle.
So while I will vote against your confirmation, I will not waste your time to ask you questions with the goal of making a dent in your shining armor while burnishing my creds with those that will support the Democrat who will hopefully replace me as Senator next year. I hope you find that to be the good news that I promised.
I cannot conclude these remarks without thanking President Trump and other conservative Christian leaders for showing how to hide power behind the mask of piety. Thanks especially for demonstrating the importance of living out the Ten commandments. Through your behavior, you have shown the importance of:
Not taking the name of the LORD God in vain unless you use foul language to demean those from other tribes.
Working on the Sabbath day, as God only helps those who work really hard to help themselves.
Honoring your father and mother as long as they share your political views.
Committing adultery as long as it takes place within your own tribe behind closed doors.
Stealing resources and the reputation of those from other tribes, making sweet-sounding laws to make this holy.
ALWAYS bearing false witness against members of other tribes, for a good defense is a strong offense.
Coveting property that belongs to members of other tribes. For greed is good.
Your honoring of these commandments has been awe-inspiring, and we will seriously consider building things better using this approach when we Democrats take power. You have skillfully packed the courts using Law School Rules for Elite Attorneys. Why shouldn’t we do the same? You have weakened the filibuster to make your supporters richer and less accountable. Why shouldn’t we follow your example?
For might makes right.
Right?
Ms. Barrett, I expect you to be confirmed after the usual muted howls, chest-beatings, and refined trash talk masquerading as trust talk. I expect that you will use your considerable skills and influence to make conditions better for rich, white, straight, non-disabled men at the expense of the rest of us, and that you will be another brick in the wall as we continue this masquerade of power politics pretending to support the complex needs of those we represent.
I hope that I am wrong.
I yield back the rest of my time, and ask that my allotted time to ask Ms. Barrett questions not be given to anyone else.
About the Author
4 Responses to Behind the Mask
Leave a Reply
Breaking Barriers - Working and Loving While Blind
Fred Nickols
October 21, 2020 at 10:06 amYou should be in the Senate, Peter.
Gary Wunder
October 21, 2020 at 3:22 pmPeter, I like what you wrote. What I found I wanted the Supreme Court nominee to say was something like this:
Good morning, senators. Over the next three days, I know you are going to ask me questions about my judicial views, my personal views, and how I may vote on issues that will soon become front and center before the Supreme Court. When you ask me, I will not evade, but my answers will fall far short of a commitment. You see, I have held many beliefs on many things that later turned out not to be true. There are few beliefs that I hold that will not be revisited, challenged, and perhaps changed. If you ask me what I think of abortion, I will tell you that I do not like the idea. Most of my fellow Americans do not either. But telling you how I feel about abortion is not at all like telling you how I will vote in an abortion case. To pre-decide any case is unfair to the defense and the prosecution and would make a mockery of our court. If you ask me whether I believe there should be a peaceful transition of power, my answer is unequivocally yes. I think that transition is core to our democracy and one of the things that sets us apart from so many countries. But if you believe that last statement means that I will not pay attention to all of the arguments that may become issues before the court, I will have unintentionally misled you, so let me reiterate: my job is not to bring my own values to the court but to consider what is placed before me.
Do I regard precedence of this court and others as significant? Of course I do. I assume that the justices who have come before me wrestled with tough issues of their time and made the best decisions they could. But if I have led you to believe that court precedent will be at the root of every decision I make, you have not yet understood me. I would not have our country embrace segregation as once the high court to which I aspire did.
So ask me your questions. I will answer honestly and without evasion, but remember that, like you, my position requires not only that I have a moral framework but that I have a brain to evaluate those morals against present-day circumstance. I hope that at the end of these three days you feel like you know me better. I also hope that you do not come away feeling that you know me so well that you could substitute for me at the court on any given day and in any given case.
I want to make one last remark before closing. In general, I believe it is my job to interpret the Constitution and the laws that have been passed by the Congress. With all due respect to you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives, might I suggest that this hearing and in fact the whole court system might be less contentious if you were more willing to write the laws by which you wish the nation to live. I know you will send many questions my way regarding the Affordable Care Act, but it is the Congress that passed that law, and it is the Congress that could eliminate any ambiguity that will come before the justices I hope to join. What makes for a free and fair election? Part of the ambiguity is that you will not decide. What makes for gerrymandering? You will ask the people I hope to soon be my colleagues decide, for on any given day you benefit from it and want it changed only when you are on the losing side. If there is to be unity in this country, may I suggest that you and your house colleagues have as much responsibility for creating it as to the nine members who sit upon the court to which I aspire to serve.
I thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questions.
That’s what I wish Miss Barrett had said. Were I to try to write for the majority of the senators, I could not have use the word moral or in good conscience. As much as I detest Donald Trump’s name calling, I am led to wonder this: how many lies does someone have to tell me before they become a liar? Is it the number of lies they tell or the magnitude of the lie?
Rick
October 21, 2020 at 4:07 pmVery well said, Peter. I am hoping that somehow she will surprise us as perhaps chief justice Roberts has. She does come across as a fairly reasonable person. I, like you, I am worried about conservative justices that think the original intent of the framers of the constitution should be what rules our land now, over 200 years after its original drafting. We shall see!
peteraltschul
October 21, 2020 at 7:08 pmThanks, Gary, for such a wonderful response. (And no, Fred, no Senatorial career for me).