The Next Woman Nominated to the Court: This Time, No Death of a Thousand Cuts

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 October, 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[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Harriet Miers has now withdrawn as a nominee for the Supreme Court.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

[El Gato]

All federal officials take oaths to protect and defend the Constitution,

Executive and Judicial officers of the states, as well as State legislators, are also required to take oaths to support the *federal* Constitution. Those are likely even more honored in the breach than the oaths taken by federal officials.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[shhrubbery!]

Just my opinion.

OK, but that's pretty weak if you can't come up with specific reasons.

I do recall "the dynamics of the Thomas situation" quite well.

Thomas's qualifications were roundly ridiculed by the Left; and the Intellectual Right, e.g. National Review, was not thrilled with his nomination either.

But Thomas has turned out to be the best justice, bar none, including Scalia.

[George Smiley]

An extremely astute observation.

You must have gotten new glasses recently.

: ^ )

[George Smiley]

I happen to agree with you that Professor Thomas Sowell would be an outstanding Justice on the Court.

What that man could do to the opinions the clerks rough out would be outstanding.

If we're going to appoint an economist to the Big Nine, I'd like to state for the record that Walter Williams would really liven the place up and poke some holes in that stuffier-than-thou decorum up there.

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, it is more than a political ploy to nominate another woman Justice. I noticed when I went to law school in the late 60s that about a quarter of the students were women. By today, that proportion has grown to one half.

Over the last 35 years, I have worked closely with state legislators in all states. The proportion of them who are women has also been growing, from about 10% to 23% most recently. Also, women are a small but growing portion of the CEO's of the Fortune 500.

I do not mean that women should have a quota of half the Justices on the Court! It should not be forced to alternate between 4 and 5 women on the Court, with every other Chief Justice appointed being a woman. On the other hand, I do NOT believe that the attitude should be expressed to half the population and half of all lawyers that women will be secondary to men in such appointments. It should be clear that women are as welcome as men, no more no less, to be considered for each appointment.

I write all this in part because I have two able and accomplished daughters who are also wives and mothers. I add that neither are lawyers, though I wouldn't be displeased if any of my granddaughters (or grandsons) became lawyers.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I very much like your comment that it is time to "roll the guns to the top of the ridge" for a fully conservative judicial nominee.

John / Billybob

[Rodney King]

OK, but that's pretty weak if you can't come up with specific reasons.

You really need me to list reasons why I think that its laughable that Miers is the best qualified person for SCOTUS? Haven't you been reading FR for the last month?

[Congressman Billybob]

Why do you think that the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown would "split" the conservatives? I thought she was highly favored by that community. BTW, I think she would be an excellent nominee, but in all fairness I'd say her odds are about 25-75 of getting the nod.

John / Billybob

[George Smiley]

Quoted by the BBC this time, on Wednesday although it hardly sounded the same coming out in a clipped upper-class accent.

And they changed the spellings of several words.

[kenth]

But do you bet eight possible years against the rest of her unnatural life?

[You Dirty Rats]

I very much like your comment that it is time to "roll the guns to the top of the ridge" for a fully conservative judicial nominee.

We'd better get our guns ready -- because the 'Rats are going to fight dirty -- ESPECIALLY if the nominee is JRB. They view African-Americans who have minds of their own and leave the Liberal plantation as traitors to their race -- and the MSM will actively help them.

We need to sharpen our bayonets as well. This will go hand-to-hand before it's over.

[hershey]

Thomas went to Yale Law School, and the Left publicly lynched him. In fact, he called it that, himself, during the hearings.. It was heinous, disgusting, shameful, and he bore it all with dignity and grace.

[RobbyS]

Who is BEST qualified? No, you are saying that she was already UNqualified when she was nominated. But not by any reasonable standard. As Justice Scalia has pointed out, BEST qualified may work in England but not in the USA because ours is a political process. She was not proved to be unqualified until she could not make it through the political process.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

You're not getting JRB this time out. Bush could not afford to do so. Frankly, were Bush to give you what you want in return for helping inflict the death of a thousand cuts on Harriet Miers, he would be rightfully scorned by the American public as being a castrated wimp.

My bet: he appoints Hillary Rodham Clinton to the court, to do two things: (1) say "F*** you very much" to Frum, Will, Coulter, Ingraham, and the other professional pundits, and (2) remove her from the chessboard for the 2008 election.

[Southack]

"(2) remove her from the chessboard for the 2008 election."

SCOTUS Justices are **not** removed from running for President.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[RHINO369]

>>
That might happen if Ruth Buizzy-Ginsberg exits stage-right. And it would be a shrewd political move - the confirmation hearings would be a site to see...and if she were to fail to be confirmed, the bloodletting in the process would ruin Hildabeast for '08 and ever after...<<

I'm usually not rude to a person, but are you joking, or stupid. You nominate a socialist, democrat to the court so you don't have to run against her. Do you invite drifters into your house to rape your wife in exchange for them promising not to kill her?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"SCOTUS Justices are **not** removed from running for President."

No, they aren't. But unless she resigns and allows her replacement to be appointed by Bush, her chances of winning are nil--because no one would take her seriously.

[RHINO369]

A justice could run for president and just resign a day before the inaugaration. The person would actually nominate their own sucessor.


BTW why would a so called Republican president nominate a liberal to fill a liberals spot, you do know justices don't have to be carbon copies of who they are replacing. I'd want to replace Souter with a Thomas or Scalia type.