In the Falmouth Outlook series for candidates for U.S. House of Representatives Kentucky’s 4th Congeressional district race, questions were submitted to Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Alexandra Owensby. Candidates were limited to a 250-word response. The is the last installment of this series. All of the candidates answers can be reviewed at www.falmouthoutlook.com. Owensby had submitted her answers for the first three questions after the deadline to run in last week’s edition. You can read them at www.falmouthoutlook.com.
By Thomas Massie, Republican
4th Congressional District Representative
The SCOTUS is a hot button topic as I type this question. Are you in favor of increasing the number of justices on the SCOTUS? Should they continue with lifetime appointments?
I’m not in favor of changing the number of judges on the Supreme Court, but if we do, we should go back to an equal number of justices. With an equal number of justices, ties would be more likely, resulting in fewer congressionally passed laws being overturned. The Supreme Court should not be legislating.
Lastly, it seems that legislators opinions changes on issues depending on what is the letter behind the President’s name. We have seen Democrats speak positively on building a wall when Obama wanted to build a wall. We have seen Republicans refuse to consider Obama’s SCOTUS nominee and now support hearing Trump’s nominee. Why do legislators change their stances on issues and create frustration with voters?
I was attacked in my Republican primary race for not voting with the party frequently enough and for not always voting with President Trump, but I prevailed because the people of Kentucky’s fourth district don’t want a rubber stamp. They want someone who will read the bills, research the consequences, and then cast a vote for the people on Kentucky. I’ve been a consistent advocate of individual liberty, economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government from the day I was elected in 2012, even when it has meant going against the established party in Washington DC.
By Dr. Alexandra Owensby, Democrat
The SCOTUS is a hot button topic as I type this question. Are you in favor of increasing the number of justices on the SCOTUS? Should they continue with lifetime appointments?
I believe the Supreme Court has lost the trust of Americans over the last few years. I think it has become highly partisan and the majority of Americans believe it is no longer an unbiased court. Above all else, we need government systems which have the trust of Americans. We need the highest level of court in the land to be one which the majority of Americans are able to have confidence in and rest assured the decisions represent their own viewpoints. In the past, Supreme Court nominees had bipartisan support. While they may have leaned conservative or liberal, their viewpoints largely reflected the viewpoints of society. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. When appointing someone to a lifetime appointment, three weeks consideration does not seem adequate. Lifetime appointments should be based on a lifetime of service and experience. If we elect people to the Supreme Court at young ages, we are electing judges in the early stages of their careers. This level of experience does not warrant lifetime appointments, as they are still learning their trade. I believe we need to reevaluate the qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court nominee. I support judicial nominees who have the experience of being at the tail end of their careers. I support lifetime appointments being based on bipartisan support. If a nominee does not have overwhelming bipartisan support, I believe in a limited appointment. By instituting these guidelines, I believe we would get back to nominees who represent the majority of Americans, regardless of the political party nominating them.
Lastly, it seems that legislators opinions changes on issues depending on what is the letter behind the President’s name. We have seen Democrats speak positively on building a wall when Obama wanted to build a wall. We have seen Republicans refuse to consider Obama’s SCOTUS nominee and now support hearing Trump’s nominee. Why do legislators change their stances on issues and create frustration with voters?
Legislators change their stances because they care more about their political standing and power than they care about the people they represent. Voters are right to feel frustrated, because they recognize the lack of ethics in these politicians! Most voters are not radical left or radical right, but somewhere in the radical middle. These radical middle voters have gotten lost along the way as politicians have trended more and more toward only representing their extreme partisan sides. One of the many reasons I decided to run for office was because I believe those of us in the radical middle need a voice. Too often in today’s political system, the moderate voices get looked down upon because we don’t stand strongly on one side or the other. I believe that is the problem with politics. We are afraid to vote for the candidate we most agree with if they are running for the opposite party. We don’t like our own parties’ representative, but are afraid to give the opposite party a seat at the table. I would urge everyone to recognize that WE are the problem if we vote for our political party’s nominee even when we recognize they don’t represent our views. Only by reaching out and voting against extreme partisan politics will we bring a voice of unity back to the nation.