God bless Louisiana Senator John Kennedy. The man may come across on camera like a down home, laid back, country gentleman, but like a Southern version of the detective Columbo, Kennedy is great at making his political opponents look like the fools that they so often are.
Take the Senate hearings for Biden judicial nominations. Kennedy asks seemingly casual questions in a low-key manner, but after a few questions, that’s when the trap is sprung. And they tend to be beautiful to see.
Chris Enloe describes a recent one. Enloe writes,
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) exposed yet another Biden judicial nominee on Tuesday.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Kennedy asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Maldonado — a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals — about a legal brief she signed on behalf of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in 2012 supporting an assault weapons ban in Cook County, Illinois.
“You said, ‘Assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.’ Tell me what you meant by ‘assault weapons,'” Kennedy asked.
At first, Maldonado tried to deflect by explaining that she did not actually write the brief, she only signed it.
“If you signed a brief, you’re testifying to the court that everything in it is true, right?” Kennedy pressed.
“Yes,” Maldonado affirmed.
Enloe continues:
Kennedy then asked his question again, eliciting a telling admission from Maldonado.
“I am not a gun expert,” she said.
“But you were giving the court advice about — say, ‘Ban assault weapons.’ You told the court you were an expert. Just tell me what you wanted to ban,” Kennedy followed up.
Maldonado, however, could not answer the question.
You can see the exchange in the video below.
Kennedy nailed Maldonado on this point.
Sadly, it’s this kind of double-speak that we constantly see from anti-2A politicians and liberal judges who want to legislate from the bench: They can’t tell you any logical reasons why they want to push their anti-gun policies, just that they’re right in wanting to ban something that they can’t even define.
It’s absurd.
But because these people are nominated to be justices by anti-2A politicians, it’s important that we work to get people into office who actually care about the Constitution and about doing the right thing. Because anti-2A politicians clearly don’t care about either of those things.