Posted on 09/19/2002 6:04:33 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Bush's nominee to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that he has strong personal opinions on issues such as the right to life and freedom of religion. But University of Utah Law Professor Michael McConnell said it is his devotion to the law, not his personal opinions, that should be considered by the committee.
"I can tell you with as much conviction as I have for anything," McConnell insisted, "that I will serve as a judge committed to the rule of law, not just because I have to, but because I believe that is the right role."
He agreed with committee members that judges should not decide cases based on their personal beliefs, but rather based on the Constitution, the text of laws, and precedents set by higher courts.
Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called McConnell "truly one of the most humble legal geniuses of our time."
"Professor McConnell, in my opinion, cannot be pegged as an 'ideologue' in any sense of the word," Hatch said. "He is an honest man. He calls it as he sees it. And, he is beholden to no one and to no group."
Hatch supports McConnell's nomination, despite the law professor's vocal criticism of Hatch's constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the U.S. flag. McConnell believes such prohibitions of political expression are unconstitutional.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised McConnell for his "innovative thinking" as a law professor, but then questioned his application of such thinking to a 1997 case. Federal Judge John E. Sprizzo refused to jail two pro-life clergymen for violating his own order that barred them from praying within a certain distance of an abortion clinic.
"Basically, you praised Judge Sprizzo for the concept of 'judicial nullification;' judges substituting their personal beliefs for the law as defined by Congress or a higher court," Schumer claimed. "You show complete sympathy with Judge Sprizzo."
McConnell corrected Schumer's charges immediately.
"I criticized judicial nullification," McConnell explained. "I said that there is jury nullification in our system, but that there is no such thing, and shouldn't be such a thing as judge, or judicial nullification."
Schumer disputed McConnell's characterization of the article, to which McConnell responded by reading his own words.
"What I said is that what he did was not lawful," McConnell recalled. "I said, 'it cannot be true that individuals may violate court orders with impunity whenever they sincerely believe those orders are morally wrong.' I said 'it would be utterly unacceptable to allow such violations only, but whenever, the judge happened to agree with the violator.'"
Hatch argued that, while McConnell's supporters come from all parts of the political spectrum, his detractors come from only one source.
"About the only opposition to Professor McConnell's nomination has come from the inside the Beltway advocacy groups," Hatch said.
Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), admits her group's opposition is based solely on McConnell's so-called "extremist" view that unborn children deserve legal protection.
"This nominee stands alone in having devoted much of his prolific and distinguished career to eradicating a woman's right to choose [abortion]," she said. "Indeed, he has gone so far as to suggest that the courts should declare embryos persons under the Fourteenth Amendment."
Ralph Neas, president of the liberal advocacy group "People for the American Way," said McConnell is "one of the most brilliant law professors, engaging law professors that I've seen and heard" in the United States.
"But a lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals requires more than having legal skills, more than being a great professor, more than being likeable and collegial," Neas said. "It also requires that the nominee have an open mind, and that the nominee have a commitment to equal justice under the law."
Hatch reminded his colleagues that McConnell received a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.
"I must say that, what I find striking is the stark difference between the evaluation provided to this committee by his academic peers who know him best," Hatch concluded, "and that done by these Washington special interest groups."
Very badly written paragraph. Obviously, if an amendment was passed, it would be constitutional. McConnell more likely thinks that such an amendment would be a waste of time, a bad precedent, and in violation of free speech rights that exist independent of the Constitution (I agree).
No kidding--that's why Hatch proposed an amendment to the Constitution--to make such prohibitions constitutional. Whether something is currently unconstitutional is irrelevant to the validity of an amendment. I think either the perfessor misspoke (highly unlikely) or the reporter doesn't understand the legal issue (highly likely).
I'm glad Jeff Johnson finished Kate's sentence for her. That would be a good practice for other writers and editors, to remove ambiguity.
Move along.
to sum up what he really meant...
Pro-Life= closed mind
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.