Posted on 10/27/2005 10:22:03 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Harriet Miers has now withdrawn as a nominee for the Supreme Court. No one of the attacks against her would have been sufficient to cause withdrawal. Instead, she suffered the death of a thousand cuts. Who will be the new nominee, and how will she answer the inevitable attacks against her?
Yes, “her.” I expect the President to nominate another woman to replace Justice O’Connor, whose resignation is conditional on confirmation of her replacement.
Here’s my prediction of the new nominee’s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
We have now had, in short order, two nominations for the Supreme Court who were attacked as having “no paper trail.” One of those, you and the whole Senate confirmed. One withdrew before her hearing. In my case, there has been no such objection. Instead, I have been attacked as having too much of a paper trail.
Many have looked at speeches I have given. Some have questioned my political views. So I begin with that.
I have been a good citizen all my life. My career shows that I have a deep love for this nation, and for the opportunities it provides. Without those, I could not have ascended from where I began, to where I am today. In most nations of the world, such opportunities are not available.
So I have followed politics, studied the issues and candidates, and voted in most elections since I became 18. However, it would be a mistake for you to conclude that my political views dictate my judicial views.
The task of a Supreme Court Justice is quite different from that of a Senator. You form and state policy positions in public for the benefit of your constituents. Then you reach your conclusions, and vote on the bills. A Justice has no constituents, because the Constitution was written to separate Justices from any constituents, other than the tens of thousands of men and women who are the Framers of the Constitution.
I see some eyebrows raised. Yes, thousands of men and women. You will note that the Constitution provides that all amendments become part of the basic document. Some of you were here in 1992, when the last Amendment – one that came from the hand of James Madison – was declared ratified by Congress. By then, thousands of women were serving in the state legislatures who acted on that amendment.
All Justices are both human beings and citizens. All have “personal” views on a wide variety of subjects. However, all are under the obligation to decide the case before them on the basis of the law and the facts, and nothing else. This is the obligation of all judges on all courts. However, it is most important for Supreme Court Justices because there is no court above them to correct their errors, if they fail.
Weighing the law and the facts is the sole task of a judge. That’s why the very symbol of Justice is a robed woman, blindfolded, and holding a set of scales.
Look to my record as a judge, on the Supreme Court of California and on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to see whether I have obeyed that requirement. The question is not whether I have any views as a citizen. It is whether I have, as a judge, followed the law and the facts, and set aside my personal opinions.
What law will I follow? The Constitution refers to itself as “the supreme Law.” As Madison, Hamilton and Jay explained in the Federalist. The federal law cannot be different in different parts of the nation because state or federal lower courts reach differing opinions. Uniformity of federal law is one great purpose of the Supreme Court.
But there is one purpose far above that, one I’ve been dedicated to from the day that I left law school, long, long ago. That is dedication to the Constitution of the United States. All federal officials take oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, but that oath by Justices is perhaps most important. That’s because Justices are in a unique position to cause damage to the Constitution if they do not obey their oaths. I believe my record shows I will obey the Constitution without fear or favor.
What is the Constitution? It is not just an historical document to be revered, like a relic in a glass box in a sanctuary. It is not just a set of helpful hints about government, to be referred to on occasion. It is the law. It should be obeyed. And it should be changed, when need be, only by the people, acting through their representatives in Congress and the state legislatures, exactly as Article V provides.
For a group of Justices to amend the Constitution is, itself, a violation of the Constitution. The power to amend belongs only to the people, for as Thomas Jefferson rightly observed, the people are the “only safe repository of the powers of the society.”
This is not a new idea, nor should it be strange in any way to the members of this Committee. This is the theory of popular sovereignty, which was stated in the Declaration of Independence, carried out in the Constitution including its amendments, and which I would follow as a Justice on the Court.
I’m Janice Rogers Brown and I seek your vote to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
I believe Judge Brown could and should say every bit of this except the last line. She would be smart enough to think it, but wise enough not to say it.]
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
If the answer to both questions is "yes", what is the point of starting a fight that we'll lose?
One possibility, and I am just speculating, is that given W's current situation, to have a war with the Dems where the face of the Democratic party is Kennedy and Schumer might be very good for the GOP overall.
Also, don't forget, Reagan had Bork and Ginsburg, and that didn't hurt is presidency. I am not sure why everyone thinks it is such a disaster to have a Supreme Court nominee lose.
I am Woman. Hear Me Roar. Senators, I Am Too Big To Ignore.
I don't. The Dems are cowards. And they lie.
Do you think the 'Rats and moderate Republicans will have 51 votes to defeat the "nucular" option?
Won't be necessary.
Nam Vet
Blackmun.
I have already posted my thoughts on why JRB would be an excellenet strategic choice for Bush to make:
It'd be good poker of the highest order as
1) It'd force the Dems to attack a black female
2) Who was re-elected by large margins in the well-known bastion of right-wing extremism known as Kah-lee-four-nyah.
3) Who they have voted for mere months ago to confirm to a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court.
1 and 2 just make them look bad when they attack.
3 makes them look either stupid or hypocritical; they'll make verbal pretzels in the air explaining why she suddenly became a maybe from a yes.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Written in the late 1700s, finally ratified in 1992. Read about it here
Not as much so.
Why not?
I don't think the President or the Republican party can depend on any Republican in Congress to show any backbone and fight for the Presidents nomination.
Whether it is Judge Brown or some other woman judge, I feel strongly that this time the President will not make any effort to avoid a fight, but will put up a hard-wired judicial conservative.
So we know which "Republicans" we need to defeat in primaries.
Nominated for post of the day!
She's the right woman at the right time.
Two bitter, rabid dogs.
The idea that a John McCain or Olympia Snowe could be defeated in a primary is utterly ridiculous.
Bush already has one RINO confirmed, appointed another one, and the next one will be one too.. Why?.. Rinoisimus Maximus is the name and the son of "read my lips" is the game.. thats why the boy is goin for a Dame..
We might not get them all, but if we take out one or two, it would cause the rest to get a little antsy.
Just my opinion. Also, I don't recall the dynamics of the Thomas situation all that well. All I know is that the idea that Miers is the most qualified person for the Supreme Court is totally laughable.
We're just concerned that you might grow into a man in office.
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.