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.
And unfortunately, W isn't a conservative.
I think you are right about Brown and Olson, but I think it will be Scalia who is elevated to Chief Justice.
Democrats would never accept Ted Olsen. His wife was murdered on 9/11 so the democrats would say he was too close to the terrorism issue to be a fair judge.
It stands to reason. One of the reasons they don't like Michael Luttig is because his fathers killer was executed so they don't trust him on the death penalty.
can you send that along to his speech writers?
Even if YOU don't get a dime for it, it is perfect.
But some of us would like him to be at the ranch in Crawford wearing his jeans and cowboy hat when he says it....
Thats what I like to see, child-like idealism.
Keep dreaming John, It'll keep you young.
I'm thinking the actual announcement of the names is made by Michael Buffer in a tux, and then "Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuumble!!"
I even agree with the nominees.
May I pass this around???
Witch.
Nah... Antonin Scalia has seniority, and should be the one elevated. Besides, he's the best judge on the court anyway.
But then again, let the Democrats attack him and see what happens...
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.
Until such a change is made, the the "originalist" doctrine is the only correct one---it must be interpreted "as written", and "as understood" by those who wrote it.
Great post, John - I think he may well put Thomas forward as the next CJ - wouldn't that fix the libs' bicycle!
"I think you are right about Brown and Olson, but I think it will be Scalia who is elevated to Chief Justice."
In terms of the right people being named, they are interchangeable. Same goes for the other two names: I didn't mean to be playing "crystal ball" here--I'm talking about the kinds of jurists I hope to see.
However, there's always a "however"! Here's mine:
Re: 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 of appointed, unaccountable judges.
All things being equal, I would prefer Thomas simply because he is younger and could serve longer. However, I don't think Bush or Thomas wants a repeat of Anita Hill, and I have no doubt the left would produce more accusers.
Thank you for the kind words. I agree with the ranch background, for delivery. As for sending it along to his speechwriters...I don't know how to go about that. If you do, have at it. If anyone else does, go for it.
Granting full permission to anyone to pass this along or publish in any way he or she sees fit.
Nah... Antonin Scalia has seniority, and should be the one elevated. Besides, he's the best judge on the court anyway.
It's Olson.
And he's too old.
And the woman will be Jones.
"You left out the most important sentences before the closing; "I charge the Senate before the American people to abide by the US Constitution and give each nominee an up or down vote nothing else. I further charge them to complete this action on all three in 90 calendar days."
Don't disagree...but I "backed into" the business about moving things along, which I thought was more in W's style.
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.