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Harriet Miers has now withdrawn as a nominee for the Supreme Court.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
well said. Some speeches and quotes from JRB:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
I actually think Bush will reach out across the aisle and try to accommodate the likes of Harry Reid with a nominee Reid will like even more than Miers.
It is out there that Justice O'Connor wants to leave the Court to be with her seriously ill husband. A Democrat filibuster would deny a vote to a (presumably) capable nominee, and condemn O'Connor the personal right to return to her home and her husband.
That, plus the actions of the Gang of 14, lead me to conclude that there will be no filibuster -- and if Reid attempts to lead one, it will fail before the "constitutional option." The Democrats are the ones that call that the "nuclear option," and it takes 51 votes to work in our favor, not 51 votes to defeat it.
John / Billybob
Thank you Lord for you have answered our prayers. Let the choice be the best possible conservative available. We are ready for the fight and we are also ready to nuke the opposition. With the full wait of the American people we will prevail and take back our country. Amen and Amen.
But why do we INSIST that we need a WOMAN ?
Why not nominate the BEST candidate regardless of gender or ethnicity ?
That has always been my point.
This fixation on diversity and affirmative action isn't going to get us the best justice.
Let us not reverse the issue. FIRST, determine the criteria for the best SCOTUS justice, THEN nominate the best person you can find who will fit that criteria.
If it happens to be a woman, GOOD. If not, GOOD anyway.
Keep Andy the Rino Clown Card away from this process.
I am very open minded and do not need the nominee to be any specific person, but granted it wasn't visible from my earlier comment.
It is a fair comment that we shouldn't speculate. :-)
As Sun Tsu correctly observed, the time to attack is when your enemy is weak. That list of organizations is currently week. Time to attack them with a judicially conservative nominee. Methinks.
John / Billybob
Well, it was sometime in the nineties. It took a long time to be ratified.
BUMP
Amen.
There are several qualified nominees. Why isn't Janice Rogers Brown one of them? The one qualification I see most strongly in her, compared to other candidates, is she seems least likely to change in office. She isn't afraid to take an unpopular stand, if it's right. She has also been very influential on her peers.
Senators protect other Senators. She would be confirmed with at least 90 some votes.
I freely admit that I don't know what the Senate will do. NOBODY predicted ahead of time that the Gang of 14 would pull the rug out from under us.
IMHO it boils down to what Specter does. He killed the Bork nomination and saved Thomas. He has always been the key swing vote on the Judiciary Committee; as Chairman he carries even more weight. I just don't see him supporting JRB, but at this point there is not too much to lose by nominating her or an equivalent and rolling the guns up to the top of the ridge.
When you get past a certain point it's really just subjective ranking "most qualified", "2nd most qualified" -- there are many highly qualified candidates, a top tier if you will, and it doesn't really matter if you want to play politics with the specific person you pick. Age, sex, race, it's a political pick, everyone understands that, and no one will mind as long as the nominee has excellent qualifications.
However, I don't think President Bush is going to consider any non-lawyer right now. And there is a problem with Sowell. He has just turned 75. His wide-reaching brilliance would be valuable to the Court. But the calendar says that he probably wouldn't survive ten years, much less thirty years.
John / Billybob
Well, Miers WASN'T confirmed, ipso facto she wasn't qualified by your own definition.
Too good to be true, I'm afraid.
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.