HENDERSONVILLE — Self-described “conservative attorney” Bret O’Conner, who is based in Hendersonville, addressed the role of the federal and state judiciary in the United States in an hour-long program during a June 14 breakfast meeting of the Henderson County Republican Men’s Club at American Legion Post 77 here.

About 50 Men’s Club members and guests attended.

Prior to O’Conner’s program, Men’s Club Chairman Bruce Hatfield introduced special guests attending the meeting, including Abe Hudson who is seeking re-election as a judge; Jay Egolf, member of the Henderson County Board of Commissioners; Merry Guy, chairwoman of the NCGOP’s 11th District (covering most of Western North Carolina); Anna Coletta, mayor of Flat Rock; and Andy Nilsson, a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Thom Tillis. R-Huntersville.

Hatfield called on Coletta to give an update on the repair of North Highland Lake Road, a key connector to Flat Rock that was damaged Sept. 27 when Tropical Storm Helene ravaged the area.

Coletta said repairs are progressing on the nearly $10 million project, but that the road still is not open completely. The NCDOT has reset the completion date to July 24.

Hatfield also allowed a brief address by Nilsson (a U.S. Senate candidate), who noted that “what was happening in Henderson County is a miscrocosm of what is happening” elsewhere. He added that it is “a difference between openness and being closed.”

Further, Nilsson emphasized that the reason he is “running for U.S. Senate is because we are so much better than what we’ve got (Tillis). We need someone to vote consistently with President Trump’s agenda....”

Also prior to O’Conner’s address, Hatfield announced that the Men’s Club has a total membership — including members and associates — of 80 Republicans.

Following the treasurer’s report, Hatfield emphasized, “We give our money to the (GOP) candidates who win the primaries.”

He then introduced O’Conner, noting with a smile that the self-described “conservative attorney” has been “around Henderson County for more than 35 years.” O’Conner is a graduate of Campbell University, has practiced law mostly as a litigator (and now is semi-retired) and has served as a magistrate judge.

O’Conner began by speaking in the abstract, noting that “jurisdictional issues are generally geographic...Our (state) Supreme Court is elected. They can actually handle federal matters, as well... A lot of times people don’t want to trouble themselves with federal courts, as they can get terribly expensive.”

Hatfield then interjected, asking about issues, such as a federal ID and a proof of citizenship.

O’Conner triggered laughter from the meeting attendees when he quipped, “Last I saw, you have to be a citizen to vote... I have no explanation for insanity...”

At that point, and still early in his program, O’Conner told the crowd, “I’d prefer to get questions from you” rather than make a presentation. “So just ask me questions.”

An unidentified man then asked him about the recent shooting in Boulder, Colo., wherein, allegedly, an Egyptian man with a flamethrower attacked and injured 15 people at a gathering of Jews. “The suspect had overstayed his visa, but the judge blocked the exportation of his family,” the Men’s Club member lamented.

O’Conner replied, “I can address it a little bit... If those folks who are related to our perpetrator are otherwise ‘legal,’ there’s nothing that can be done, unless the secretary of the state wants to deal with it.”

Men’s Club member Mark Delk asked, “What’s the difference between ‘substantive’ due process versus ‘procedural’ due process?”

In response, O’Conner said, “Substantive due process is basically a fancy word for “I want to do this.” The best synonym would be equity… A lot of this sort of thing is being challenged at the Supreme Court right now... The states have the right to determine what is ‘due process.’”

As for Delk’s question, the Duke Law Scholarship Repository stated the following:

“Substantive due process asks the question of whether the government’s deprivation of a person’s life, liberty or property is justified by a sufficient purpose. Procedural due process, by contrast, asks whether the government has followed the proper procedures when it takes away life, liberty or property.”

Next, Men’s Club member Joe Guy asked about  “the idea of ‘appointed’ or ‘elected judges,’’ noting ‘the difficulty is vetting judges....’

Guy then triggered laughter when he quipped that “if one (judge) is liberal, it is pretty easy (to ‘vet ‘that individual)  — because they’re pretty stupid.”

More seriously, Guy asked O’Conner “how do you recommend that we educate” citizens about vetting judges?

In response, O’Conner asserted, “What can a citizen do to learn how to ‘vet’ a judge? Go to law school!” His comment prompted yet more laughter from the crowd.

O’Conner added, “I don’t like the idea of a judge being appointed for life. I also don’t like the idea of a judge being elected.”

He noted that the 1803 court decision Marbury vs. Madison “established the primacy of the federal courts and that federal law may be unconstitutional… If it’s unconstitutional, it’s not the law...”

Merry Guy, the NCGOP District 11 chairwoman and wife of Joe Guy, noted, “I’ve heard adamant arguments against the Convention of States (the Constutional Convention in 1787) … If there was another COS, what is the true risk that they can go beyond — and rewrite the whole Constitution?”

O’Conner replied, “Ultimately, it’d be legal... California is not going to go along with a lot of what might ‘bubble up,’ so it likely would be unable to muster the support needed to make such a radical change in the Constitution. 

To that end, Men’s Club member Mark Delk asked, rhetorically, “What happened to Rhode Island after they declined to go along with it? They twisted Rhode Island’s arm, basically.”

(A blog of the U.S. National Archives stated that, on May 29, 1790 “the rogue’s”(Rhode Island’s)  persistent efforts to defy the national government finally failed, and it became the last state to ratify the Constitution, more than a year after it went into effect.” The blog added that the state was reviled — and widely nicknamed —  “Rogue’s Island” for at least a decade after the Constitutional Convention.)

O’Conner noted that Delk and others at the meeting seemd to be questioning what “guard rails” are included in the U.S. system. To that, he said, “‘The guard rail’ is the people. ‘Who is the guard rail of this country? The people.’”

Joe Guy prompted — arguably — the most applause and laughter of the meeting when he playfully corrected his friend O’Conner by shouting out “the citizens!” — not “the people.”

With a big smile, O’Conner nodded and agreed with Joe Guy’s differentiation between “the people,” which could include illegal aliens, and “the citizens.”

Then, in returning to another topic on which he was questioned, O’Conner said, “If, in fact, separate states wanted to change the rules,… The upshot of it was that it was ratified by Congress.”

Club member Harvey Nix asked, “Is there not a process in Congress to impeach federal judges?”

O’Conner answered, “Well, impeachment is pretty severe. But our Congress has complete authority over judges — other than the Supreme Court... But they can tinker pretty seriously with the federal judiciary... When I was in law school, we didn’t have much experience with federal judges trying to tell the president what to do... Of course, the Supreme Court has full jurisdiction over the country.”

An unidentified woman asked, “So do illegal aliens have rights”

Without a pause, O’Conner replied, “Sure!”

To that, the woman said, “What? I don’t think so!”

Playfully — and prompting much laughter from the crowd (as well as the woman), O’Conner quipped, “I know you don’t (think so) — but you’re wrong!”

O’Conner then added, “When you’re talking about illegal aliens, there are Article 3 courts, then there’s Article 2 administrative courts… So those courts are established to determine whether someone is deportable or not. It’s a real elegant and simple process...

“We all know why federal courts are dealing with this right now… It has nothing to do with the law — it has all to do about politics...

“In the end, the administrative courts will have the authority that they should have.

“The great fear I have is they will devise some new level of due process…. What is due process procedure? Bringing a man to court somewhere, where the law will be applied to them,” O’Conner asserted.

Delk then asked about the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments…. 

O’Conner replied, “We’ve got to talk about ‘people.’ In the founding documents, those things were talking about ‘citizens’ at that level. “

Delk said, “That’s what brought about all that — the Dred Scott decision” in 1857...The judge made exactly the right decision in Dred Scott. So the 13th Amendment was required by law to liberate the slaves.”

(According to AI Overview. The Dred Scott decision denied African-Americans, “whether free or enslaved, the right to U.S. citizenship and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. This decision significantly heightened tensions surrounding slavery in the United States and is widely regarded as a major catalyst leading to the Civil War. “)

Regarding the slaves, Joe Guy noted that “they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States..”. But now, with the illegal aliens, “we’re going to treat them as individuals?”

In a compliment to Joe Guy, O’Conner quipped, “That’s too clear of a question.”

Merry Guy then queried, “Is there anything we can do to stop this?”

O’Conner answered, “If I was going to make an argument to defend the position of an illegal alien, I’d say let’s go back to the 13th Amendment. Let’s go back to someone who was born in the country…” Prior to America’s independence, “pretty much anyone born in the United States was a British citizen… The problem is it gets so large and unwieldy...”

“If I were to take a guess on what the Supreme Court is going to do with this country,” it may decide “it doesn’t mean much if you’re born in this country… What it might say is (that) anyone born in the country, up to a certain date, you’re a citizen. But at some point in the future, if you’r born in this country, that’s just too bad. You’re not a citizen.”

Merry Guy lamented that “people who are coming in now and being counted in the cities” and, despite being ‘illegals,’ could empower the election of US. officials and change the course of the nation. 

To that, O’Conner prompted laughter when he quipped, “Now you’re talking about having ‘representation without taxation,’ instead of the Colonists’ famous complaint about ‘taxation without representation’ in the U.S. split with Great Britain.

After a pause, he joked, “I haven’t revealed that I’m a conservative, have I?”

More seriously, O’Conner said, “This (illegal alien issue) will go to the Supreme Court, so you’re not beating a dead horse...

“What we give — we can take away. Crazy people can come into this country and, willy-nilly, suddenly... can ‘have “ (illegally elected) a congressman...’

Joe Guy added, “When we come to counting illegals for the purpose of representation,” the fate of the country could be in the balance.

As the program ended, a smiling O’Conner quipped, “Well, there you go, again, Joe, making sense…” 

O’Conner then received a standing ovation from several Men’s Club members — and enthused applause and cheers from the remainder  of the crowd — for his program.