How I Want to Hear President Bush Announce His Supreme Court Nominees

Self | July 13, 2005 | JohnRobertson

[John Robertson]

Before I announce the distinguished nominees I am recommending for the United States Supreme Court, I want to say something. When Justice O’Conner resigned, it was like a switch was thrown: Endless voices cut loose, with loud commentary and warnings of what would happen if I sent up the “wrong person” for our highest court. Voices from the press—voices from all across the political spectrum. You’d better do this, you’d better not do that. I was warned about appointing an “extremist”—in the most extreme terms. To coin a phrase: One citizen’s extremist is another citizen’s “centrist.” But all the folks behind all those voices were really saying the same thing: Listen to me, and nobody else.

But I did listen, to everybody. I got calls from political and religious and civic and business leaders, and I listened hard and close. I met with people face to face—including distinguished senators from both parties—and I weighed and measured every word they spoke. It’s good to know what you know, but it’s good to know what other people want you to know. Sometimes they come together; we call that a meeting of the minds. Sometimes they don’t; we call that unfortunate, and I hope we part friends. If we do, then next time out, we just might have that meeting of the minds we tried for last time.

When Justice Rehnquist resigned, it was like a damn broke: A flood of voices washed over all of us. “Control of the court” was the prevailing theme. Who would “control” the Supreme Court? This country would have to live with these choices for a generation or more—so nominees that the “majority” would agree on must be named. A lot’s been said, in fear or in anger, or with threat, but I need to say, I don’t believe anybody can or should—or should ever try to—“control” the Supreme Court. It’s too big for that—too important. It wasn’t created to be “controlled.”

A lot of voices, but it still basically comes down to two sides. Great war chests have been raised on both of those sides, to fight what has been pre-declared as an “epic battle.” It doesn’t have to be epic—it doesn’t even have to be a battle. There don’t have to be two sides, unless you set out to make them. The way I see it, there’s only one side, and I hope and pray that everyone listening to this—or reading these words later—will at least consider the “side” I’m talking about here, which is the side of the Constitution of the United States.

The process for picking, and approving or rejecting, Supreme Court justices, is outlined in our Constitution. It’s fairly straightforward. But our great and hallowed Constitution itself has very much been subject to debate. And all the debates about it are subject to one big debate that’s been going on for a while. Some people say it should be a “living document,” that must be newly interpreted, depending on the times we’re living in, while others say it must never be altered, and must strictly be adhered to.

Here’s my belief. If by “living document” you mean one that is “subject to change” and “open to re-interpretation,” depending on prevailing thought, or current trends, or political winds, I disagree. But if by “living document” you mean that our Constitution is one of the most brilliant—maybe the most brilliant—documents of government ever written; that its genius has inspired countries all over the world to form governments based on ours; that the God-given rights and freedoms it guarantees every one of us not only allow us to have this debate about it but to protect us while we’re having it, then I agree completely. Our great Constitution is every bit as alive in this very moment that we speak about it as it was when the Founders created it at the start of our country. Everything we are as Americans comes from it. Our rights. Our strength. Our prosperity. Most of all our freedoms. None of us should want to risk any of that by bending or twisting parts of it at convenient times. If we do that too many times, we might not recognize it one day. And that is the day when we might not recognize ourselves as Americans. I don’t ever want to see that day, which is why I have chosen nominees who respect the Founder’s intentions when it comes to the Constitution.

I expect that these nominees will have a fair and fast hearing, then an up or down vote. The Constitution says it’s my job to nominate qualified candidates for the court, and I have done my job. The Constitution says it’s the Senate’s job to confirm or not confirm these talented and able candidates, and I urge it to do its job in a reasonable time. These are accomplished Americans that every other American can and should be proud of. I urge you to respect their dignity, the dignity of the Court, and that of the Senate itself. I urge you not to attack them for partisan reasons or to drag out your proceedings because you don’t like what a candidate believes—or what you believe he or she believes—about one or more issues. When it comes to this court, as long as their first belief is that they are duty- and honor-bound to approach their obligations as our Constitution says they should, then they are more than ready to do this crucial job for our country.

I nominate Janice Rogers Brown to replace Sandra Day O’Conner.

I nominate Ted Olsen to replace William Rehnquist.

I nominate Clarence Thomas to be our next Chief Justice.

Thank you and God Bless America.

[John Robertson]

"Thats what I like to see, child-like idealism. Keep dreaming John, It'll keep you young."

This was my response (clearly labeled vanity) to a lot of anxiety people have been going through over this issue. I thought that was implicit in the post. I do not expect this outcome, or anything near it.

Then I check your About: 34, lives with parents, loves Heinlein (not the beer, the second-rate sci fi writer with the third-rate philosophy). Maybe what I did will keep me young, but all that shit will make you old.

[John Robertson]

Outstanding compliment, and I thank you.

Please, pass around at will. As I responded in another post, I grant FReepers permission to use in any way they see fit (as I trust most of the judgement of most of you most of the time).

G'night.

[John Robertson]

I'm not sure seniority factors in, but I would have no problem with Scalia whatsoever.

[John Robertson]

Yes, of course. But I didn't think that was germaine to this speech, in the end, if only for reasons of length. I actually cut a couple sentences of the prez giving a brief "civics lesson" re the amendment process, because they ruined the flow. Tecnically you got me, but my goal was to have a psychologically and emotionally controlled speech build to an inevitable conclusion (therefore, supporting his choices).

[John Robertson]

Nothing can fix a broken lib bicycle--because what would they bitch about once it was fixed?

Thank you for the compliment, it is much appreciated. Please pass it to friends.

[John Robertson]

Yeah, yeah, amendments. I cut that. See post #24.

But thank you sincerely for the compliment.

[jimfree]

Both definitions of "living document" in this paragraph are wrong. The Constitution "is" a "living document" in that it can be changed at will BY A 2/3 VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE CONGRESS AND A VOTE OF 3/4 OF THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES---i.e. its written amendment process.

Thank you. The Constitution evolves through the amendment process. If the amendments you seek are not happening, elect a new legislature or a new executive. A Constitution that changes day-by-day according to the whims of justices is a shifting sand rather than the rock upon which the Republic rests.

[John Robertson]

But Thomas is ON the court. They can't Anita Hill him again. They'll be nasty, but I don't think they're going to disparage a sitting justice.

[The Drowning Witch]

ping for a perfect world.

[John Robertson]

But I meant Ted OLSON, the 36-year-old judge from....

No, I misspelled it. I don't think he's too old...you may be considering life expectancies that are no longer fully operable. If Stevens can be there at 85 (no jokes now) why can't OLSEN be there at 89, or whatever?

As for Jone...fine. I'm laying out my personal "firsts among equals," in the ideological sense. No arguments on that.

[Stellar Dendrite]

'And unfortunately, W isn't a conservative."

Wouldn't it be great if he were?

[wagglebee]

When Rehnquist was elevated in 1986, the left brought out bogus charges of racism from the 1950's and early 60's.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I wasn't attacking you John, that was my (obviously less than successful) way of winking at your optimism.

Yes, I realize it was a vanity, and that it was a wish of what could be not what will be.

I personally expect to get the worst possible candidates put on the SCrOTUS with GWB's full and complete support. O'Connor and Souter are great examples of what I expect from a member of the GOP.

Did you also read the small bit of how I'm helping to "take care" of my parents and not one of those slackers living in the basement "off" their parents? Your opinion of Mr. Heinlein writing skill not withstanding, his third rate philosophy did a great deal to pull me over from the left to where I am now.

I may not be a cheerleader in the Dubya brigade, but I do know we could do somewhat worse. Now if he will just not continue his compassionate slip toward full socialist, I'll be content.

[John Robertson]

"When Rehnquist was elevated in 1986, the left brought out bogus charges of racism from the 1950's and early 60's."

I remember it well! Or painfully, I should say. But, they looked like idiots.

[John Robertson]

Alright, I was over-sensitive, and admit to not reading Heinlein much more closely than I've read a Heineken label.
So I apologize for being a weenie.

Either I completely over-reacted, or you didn't convey your thought well enough...but at any rate, you reacted with great class, and we learned that we both expect to be greatly disappointed.

If someone's philosophy brought you out of the darkness, then it must be first-rate indeed.

There, I've apologized, I've complimented, I've very nearly kissed ass...if I don't stop, right now, next thing I know I'm going to be asking to move in with you and mom and dad.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Gladly and heartily accepted, glad we cleared that up.

You're no weenie, I've gone down peoples throat here so far I got suck in their large intestine. Usually over a misunderstanding.

Oh and BTW, Mom and Dad do have a basement you could move into as long as you keep it down, they like it quiet around here.

:-D

[John Robertson]

"Oh and BTW, Mom and Dad do have a basement you could move into as long as you keep it down, they like it quiet around here."

Just got done talking to them. Uh, sorry, but you're the one who's moving into the basement.

[bitt]

'if I don't stop, right now, next thing I know I'm going to be asking to move in with you and mom and dad.'


now THAT was funny....

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Oh well. As long as they let me take the 42 inch big screen down there, I'm good to go.

[musanon]

John Robertson:

Some people say it should be a "living document," that must be newly interpreted, depending on the times we're living in, while others say it must never be altered, and must strictly be adhered to.

---

This is dangerous wording, and inaccurate as well. True Constitutionists do not maintain that it "must never be altered", only that if alteration is necessary it must be done by following the proper procedures as outlined in the Constitution, not by the whimsical fiat -----
Tarheel

---

It has been argued that the SCOTUS could 'strike down' an Amendment as unconstitutional. -- And that exact point was put before them in 1919, in a move to nullify the 18th.

"--- The Supreme Court issued its most sweeping decision concerning the Eighteenth Amendment in June 1920. Seven cases, each raising fundamental questions concerning the constitutionality of the amendment, were consolidated by the Court and labeled the National Prohibition Cases.

A host of highly regarded attorneys, including Elihu Root, William D. Guthrie, and Levy Mayer, as well as Herbert A. Rice and Thomas F. McCran, attorneys general for Rhode Island and New Jersey respectively, represented the appellants. The oral arguments lasted for five days, an unusually long time for even the most important cases.

The argument of Elihu Root attracted the most attention. The former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and senator represented a New Jersey brewer.
Root asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was simply unconstitutional.
Root from the outset opposed the form, spirit, purpose, and effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. He told friends that its denial of personal liberty, its potential for eroding respect for law, and its alteration of the balance between local and national government alarmed him."

Root gave a memorable peroration: 

" --- If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations.
You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself.

In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench. --- "