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Harriet Miers has now withdrawn as a nominee for the Supreme Court.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
why doesn't someone bring up that maybe the best nominee would be someone withOUT judicial, or even legal experience? the vast majority of the people here would make a better justice than many "qualified" potentials. it would be a "common sense" approach to the constitution, reading what it says, not looking for other meanings to create an interpretation to fit what's expediant.
In August, People For the American Way and the NAACP released a joint report opposing Brown's confirmation. In recent weeks, her nomination has met increasing opposition, both in her home state and nationally, from groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Democratic Action, Feminist Majority, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Bar Association, National Council of Jewish Women, National Organization for Women, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planned Parenthood, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the Sierra Club. Brown's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 22.
from people of the American way.........
In other words, it's all about your opinion? That's the way I read what you wrote.
Float that trial balloon a little.....
Well written and my thoughts also.
And this says that she's the right one at the right time.
And this time, NO MERCY on the Leftist loonies.
Sure. Whether or not a statement is "laughable" is clearly a subjective statement. Thomas didn't have the world's greatest resume when he was nominated, although, I confess that I don't recall the dynamics of the time and who else was speculated as under consideration. With the Meirs case, to suggest that she was the most qualified candidate when the alternatives include Brown, Luttig, McConnel, the Ediths, Owen, etc. is truly laughable to me. If you really think that Miers is more qualifed then all of them, I would love to know why.
It will be some chick that I never heard of before. But FR will surely have the nominee's dossier..
"Next nominee: Ann Coulter. ;-)"
We're talking about the Supreme Court, not the Hall of Shame.
"Word is that they want someone already vetted and the odds are for McConnell."
Right before Miers was nominated, sooooooo many people thought they "knew" who the nominee would be. Very few did, turns out. I think obsessing over a small list is what got people all surprised and disgruntled last time. People should be more open-minded this time around.......
That is great. Very funny. And appropriate.
Because she was President Bush's pick. That's the first constitutional qualification. Senate confirmation is the second.
And I see trouble getting any of the judges you cite through to qualification #2. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist in this matter.
So, the answer to whether or not she was "the most qualified" is that she was the President's pick? huh? Does that mean that if he nominated Pee Wee Herman that he would therefore be the most qualified?
And I see trouble getting any of the judges you cite through to qualification #2. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist in this matter.
I do think that you are being too pessimistic, but, leaving that aside, the ability to get someone through is a poltical matter that is seperate from whether she is the most qualified person for the job.
She is libertarian leaning and from her speeches she would end up ruling against most of Bush's wasteful plans. No political hack, Republican or Democrat, is going to nominate or put this woman on the Supreme Court with the possibility that the party's programs and plans could be overturned. Bush did elevate her status on the federal judiciary. But any of her rulings will be held in check by SCOTUS. With 8 statists on the bench (and Justice Thomas), any ruling that steps too far off the track will be immediately overruled
That's too bad, we need 9 of her.
I believe we have one. Justice Thomas. Bush isn't going to make the mistake of accidently putting two conservatives one the bench that would overrule his programs and handouts. Course I could be wrong. I doubt it though
Why did you put "Best Qualified" in quotes?Because "qualifications" are relative. This is perhaps an expression of my own conservatism, but IMHO the definition of public interest is the Constitution in general, summarized in the preamble in particular and specifically in the last phrase "to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It may seem easy to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves, but it takes wisdom to preserve them to our posterity. So the person most qualified to sit on SCOTUS is the wisest American you can find. Thomas Sowell, anyone? Note that he isn't even a lawyer, let alone a judge. So some would call him utterly unqualified - but would you trust anyone more to see the long-run ramifications of a policy?
The President needs to get back to basics. He needs to pick the most qualified legal mind he can find that believes the Constitution can only be amended as specified in the Constitution -- not by nine black robed individuals. I know there are several women who meet the latter part of that requirement but there are also scores of men who do so. I hope the President nominates Luttig and maybe Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign in protest that he didn't nominate another Sandra "Nightfalls on the Constitution" O'Connor.
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.