Posted on 07/13/2005 6:50:43 PM PDT by John Robertson
Before I announce the distinguished nominees I am recommending for the United States Supreme Court, I want to say something. When Justice OConner 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 pressvoices from all across the political spectrum. Youd better do this, youd better not do that. I was warned about appointing an extremistin the most extreme terms. To coin a phrase: One citizens extremist is another citizens 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 faceincluding distinguished senators from both partiesand I weighed and measured every word they spoke. Its good to know what you know, but its good to know what other people want you to know. Sometimes they come together; we call that a meeting of the minds. Sometimes they dont; 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 moreso nominees that the majority would agree on must be named. A lots been said, in fear or in anger, or with threat, but I need to say, I dont believe anybody can or shouldor should ever try tocontrol the Supreme Court. Its too big for thattoo important. It wasnt 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 doesnt have to be epicit doesnt even have to be a battle. There dont have to be two sides, unless you set out to make them. The way I see it, theres only one side, and I hope and pray that everyone listening to thisor reading these words laterwill at least consider the side Im 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. Its 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 thats been going on for a while. Some people say it should be a living document, that must be newly interpreted, depending on the times were living in, while others say it must never be altered, and must strictly be adhered to.
Heres 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 brilliantmaybe the most brilliantdocuments 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 were 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 dont ever want to see that day, which is why I have chosen nominees who respect the Founders 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 its my job to nominate qualified candidates for the court, and I have done my job. The Constitution says its the Senates 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 dont like what a candidate believesor what you believe he or she believesabout 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 OConner.
I nominate Ted Olsen to replace William Rehnquist.
I nominate Clarence Thomas to be our next Chief Justice.
Thank you and God Bless America.
"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.
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.
I'm not sure seniority factors in, but I would have no problem with Scalia whatsoever.
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).
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.
Yeah, yeah, amendments. I cut that. See post #24.
But thank you sincerely for the compliment.
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.
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.
ping for a perfect world.
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.
'And unfortunately, W isn't a conservative."
Wouldn't it be great if he were?
When Rehnquist was elevated in 1986, the left brought out bogus charges of racism from the 1950's and early 60's.
"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.
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.
"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.
'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....
Oh well. As long as they let me take the 42 inch big screen down there, I'm good to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.