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 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.
It's getting picked up:
http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/2005/07/a_living_docume.html
Re my failure to invoke the amendment process....
tarheel, musanon:
Using your good posts, and taking some of your language, I have amended the speech I wrote for President Bush. Rather than try to "work it in" (actually, I did try, but found that it hurt the flow and tone), I just planted it as a new graph, near the end:
"...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.
But what about extraordinary circumstances, people ask—situations the Founders just couldn’t foresee? They couldn’t possibly know the details of conditions far into the future. That’s right: they couldn’t. Which is why they put in place a mechanism that addresses that: the Amendment process. It, too, is outlined in the Constitution. In their brilliance, the Founders handed down a fair and logical way for the people of this country to address their changing needs—while still always preserving the most sacred underlying principles of our way of governing.
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..."
I thank all for the thoughtful, encouraging response. (It has been picked up in a few places, around the web, by the way.)
"I feel, though, that it will be an ugly fight."
Let us hope and pray! If it's ugly, that means our side got some nominees worth fighting over!
If I hear one more lib-Dem call for a "consensus nominee" (meaning, someone from the squishy middle who will drift leftward much sooner than anyone on the right supposed), then I'm gonna scream.
Even though I "named" Carter to be the new CJ in "Bush's announcement speech," I'd be just as happy, possibly moreso, with Scalia. The other two I named--Brown and Olson--can also be switched out to other names that we approve. My point was, I hope and pray that we get these kinds of people as our nominees. Any such three named by Bush would indeed trigger a nuclear option...the Dems would meltdown.
"Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Janice Rogers Brown, and other conservative blacks ARE NOT BLACK as far as the 'Rats are concerned!"
One of the reasons there are two African-Americans on my judicial "dream team" (even though, as I've said elsewhere on this thread, other jurists could be substituted for them--if they're of the right mindset) is, I really want Americans, and especially African-Americans, watch confirmation hearings in which Brown and Thomas acquit themselves wonderfully, and with great intelligence and dignity...and then Schumer and Teddy tear them down. I want them to think, Why are Democrats treating our people like this?
Thanks for the comp; appreciated.
Now keep praying.
I didn't get to your LONG post until tonight (not a complaint about the length, by the way). It bears re-reading, then reading again. Thank you.
bttp
"Do We Have a Living Constitution?" is a question whose answer, in the interest of liberty for future generations, demands honest and objective review of the Founders' own writings regarding their intent.
The essay quoted in my post exposes one of the "antics with semantics" used by those who wish to change the Founders' Constitutional protection of a 'government of laws, not of men', into a 'government by a few men and women who can change the law at will.'
In order to accomplish a transformation in public opinion regarding that unlawful change, the dishonest perpetrators used the actual words of Marshall, but strung them together in a way that changed his meaning altogether.
We often see similar tactics used by spokesmen of the Left in order to impose a distorted view of the Constitution upon an unwitting citizenry.
On Page 128 of "Our Ageless Constitution," the volume from which the previous essay was quoted, is the following statement:
"The degree to which the American people have accepted this departure from the Framers' concept of rule of law through 'a government of laws, not of men,' can be seen by considering a statement made in a small-town, locally-sponsored seminar for the purpose of studying the Constitution during its Bicentennial. A member of the local audience asked the visiting lecturer, a university professor from a a major state university conducting the seminar, 'Why is it that our Constitution has survived for 200 years when those of other countries have historically failed?' The professor's reply was that in the United States, the citizens had a Supreme Court that was 'courageous' enough to make changes to the Constitution without going through what he described as the slow, cumbersome, and deliberative process the Founders had laid out. Instead, he said, 'What we have might be called a 'sitting constitution!' Sadly, the twenty-five or so people in the audience, with the Constitutional knowledge which had been provided to them through their educational system, were evidently not alarmed by his statement. . . ."
President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court will have opportunity, it is hoped, to call attention to the powerful protection of Article V of the Constitution he/she is sworn to defend, by interpreting according to the intentions of the geniuses who drafted, and the citizens who ratified a Constitution for the United States of America!
That is true.
"And unfortunately, W isn't a conservative."
He's a social conservative, and that's good enough for me at this time.
We spend so much time talking about the border and free trade, but as a nation we simply ignore it that over 1 million babies are aborted each year.
What a joke.
"He's a social conservative, and that's good enough for me at this time. We spend so much time talking about the border and free trade, but as a nation we simply ignore it that over 1 million babies are aborted each year."
Absolutely, abso-freaking-lutely.
Our President is so far from perfect it isn't even funny.
But he's also so much closer to basic conservative principles than other recent presidents have been, we should be more grateful. I am not talking about a perfect world (and you weren't either). But some on our side (and on this forum), never stop to think what our culture and world and society would be like if Al Gore had won, and/or Kerry. Scary.
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.