The End Of Speculation...For Now
Upon leaving the hospital yesterday, Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued the following statement. And based on this statement, all speculation should cease now, right?
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as Chief Justice as long as my health permits."
Apparently, the Chief is going nowhere. That is, as he states it, while his health holds out. For a man suffering from thyroid cancer and who is eighty years old, he seems to be holding his own. He’s definitely on the feisty side, as a reporter found out last week when they asked the Chief when he was stepping down, and the Chief replied, "That’s for me to know and you to find out."
Let’s face cold hard facts: Rehnquist is going nowhere. So, we are dealing with only one opening now. But some recent news I’ve found out has me a bit disturbed. First of all, there are four senators floating O’Connor’s name to replace Rehnquist should he step down. As he is not stepping down, this is a moot point. These are the idiots involved in the letter, and below is a link to that letter—Sens. Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. (I’d like to point out that Snowe and Collins belong to the Gang of 14.)
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/SOCltr.pdf
But what is most disturbing to me is that it seems that the president is removing his qualified jurists from his "short list" in favor of those with less contention. In other words, to ensure his nominee gets through without a fight, he’s willing to dip over to the moderates. He’s been cowed into doing this. Edith Jones, a staunch opponent of Roe is supposedly off his list, solely because of her stance. I guess the president missed the point that well over 70% of America finds abortion a deplorable act; and one that has cost this nation over thirty million aborted babies since the Supreme Court decided to legalize the murder of an unborn baby.
So, the president is being pushed around. This wouldn’t happen were I the president. First of all, I wouldn’t be consulting with senators over my nominees. Those people are none of their business until I announce them. Second, the seven Republicans that stabbed the party in the back over the crappy-ass deal that was put together would lose any and all support from the party. And as the person who is the head of the party, as president, yes I would have the power to do that. (I was incensed when Bush threw his support behind a RINO like Specter in Pennsylvania, instead of his opponent.)
He came to Washington to be a "uniter, not a divider," but he hasn’t done that. He can’t even unite his own damned party. And he went to Washington to be the President of the United States, not a mediator or a moderator. Presidents don’t negotiate. They act. Senators negotiate and capitulate. The president seems to be ready to cave into the Democrats on the issue of judicial nominees. The Circuit, appellate, and district courts are a nice starting point to place originalists, but the high court is the brass ring. We need them there more than anywhere else. Why?
Simply put, the buck stops with the high court. If lose your argument—your case—at the state level, you can appeal it up through the federal court system, and eventually to the Supreme Court, should they decide to accept it. (It’s not easy to get the Court to accept a case. Forty copies of a writ of certiorari [a common law writ issued from a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case] must be filed with the Court that includes a copy of the lower court opinion and statements discussing the legal questions, or the questions to be reviewed, and the reasons why the Court should hear the case.) As you can see, a lot of hoops have to be jumped through before the Court will even consider a case. It’s not like the movies where people think they can just appeal to the Court, and it will jump to their side to hear their argument.
The point of all of this is simple: The president doesn’t seem to think the opinion of this nation matters is he chooses to settle for moderate jurists on the Court. In short, this would be a disaster. Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Emilio Garza, Samuel Alito, etc., are originalist jurists. They believe in the rule of law as it stands now. Miguel Estrada is another originalist who remarked to the Senate Judiciary Committee that despite his personal misgivings about Roe it is the law of the land, and he would uphold that law. That, ladies and gentlemen is the thinking of an originalist. I don’t like Roe either, but Estrada and other originalists are correct. It is the law of the land. A single jurist cannot overturn the decision. A single jurist can tip the balance one way or another, but past cases revolving around Roe (Stenberg v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to be exact) have shown the Court’s reluctance to readdress Roe. The justices don’t want to touch Roe with a ten-foot pole.
But Roe isn’t the only issue that the Court is facing. After the Kelo decision, it became crystal-clear apparent that the Court hasn’t tossed aside it’s activist role. In the decision of McConnell v. FEC they took a clear step in striking down a basic, fundamental right protected under the First Amendment; that being our right to utilize our free political speech. A crucifix in a toilet is protected, but we can’t jump into the political debate sixty days outside of an election. That is basically what they set as precedent in McConnell. In Kelo, the Court disregarded the Fifth Amendment’s "Takings Clause," and ruled that the state has the right to seize your property, and give it to another person all on the argument of greater promised tax revenues. The key word is promised, as in promised by a developer in a development proposal. Tax revenues can’t be guaranteed.
What used to be guaranteed was our right to own property. What used to be guaranteed was our ability to continue in the debate over candidates during an election cycle up to and including the day of the election. What used to be guaranteed were our fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights—the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Court has seen fit to reexamine those rights, and rule on them today; when that is done our rights are firmly in danger, and that has become apparent in recent years.
Forget about the idea that a contentious nominee might irk the Democrats and moderate Republicans. The job of the president is to nominate the most qualified jurist to go to the bench. A moderate does not hold such criteria, as I see it. They will rule sometimes on the side of the law, but more often than not, I fear, they will rule based on their own personal preferences, or worse, the way public opinion is moving. We have already seen how public opinion can be manipulated by the media. And anyone who has a whit of sense regarding the judiciary knows that public opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is what the laws, statutes, rules, and regulations say. They’re in black and white. If they say you can’t do something, that is what is meant. It does not fall to the Court to decide to write a new law, or an addendum to such law. That is the role of the legislature and Congress, should it fall under Congress’s purview. But this does not fall to the role of a judge.
So, it’s time to call the president, and keep calling him until he gets it that the majority of people in this nation want originalists on the bench. I know I do, and I know I’m not alone. If I thought that I would even be worthy of a level of consideration, I’d offer myself up as a nominee. But I’m a nobody, well outside the establishment, and on many occasions, I’m reminded that I’m not a lawyer. Those people are right, but being a lawyer isn’t a prerequisite to be a Supreme Court justice. Regardless, it’s a nice thought, but wholly improbable.
But the president needs to be reminded by the citizens that we want the Court set right, and moved back to where it’s proper role is. By nominating a moderate, and caving into the Democrats in the Senate, and the Gang of 14 as a whole, the president is sending a message to America that he doesn’t care about our opinions—educated or otherwise. That, my friends, is unacceptable in my book. If he decides to do so, I will withdraw any further support of this president. The Courts and the war are my two big topics. I’m not a single-issue kind of person. But these two issues are important to me, and I place the Court as the highest domestic priority to the nation. It is essential that we have a Court that performs its proper duty.
When they do not do their jobs in "good Behaviour," we should have a recourse. We technically do, but the Senate is reluctant to do its job in holding them accountable, and removing jurists that step outside the parameters of their duties. I’m not talking about disagreeing with their decisions. I’m talking about things intricate within their decisions. Take the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the sodomy case. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy acted well outside the parameters of his duties by citing foreign law, namely English law. He cited the Sexual Offence Act of 1967, the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and the case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. Based on that alone, Kennedy should have been impeached.
Why? Because "good Behaviour" means that you base your decisions on American law. The laws of the fifty states, the regulations and statutes enacted by a duly-elected legislature, or direct civilian vote, and through the Constitution. Foreign law has no place in any interpretation of American law. This violated his oath as a Supreme Court Justice, and because he did so, the man should have been removed. He wasn’t. The Senate dropped the ball, and ignored their job. They can confirm them, and remove them.
The point I’m trying to convey is simple: We need to take back our courts. I thought Bush was doing a decent job when it came to his nominees, but the information I’m getting now as to who is and who isn’t on his short list is giving me fits. Granted, he has not officially named anyone, as yet. So, I may be getting agitated over nothing. But I cannot take a chance of letting this piece of information slip by without comment. President Bush campaigned on the platform of originalist judges. If he’s not going to stand by that promise, then we shouldn’t stand by him, or anyone else who believes that the Supreme Court needs more moderates.
Publius II
Upon leaving the hospital yesterday, Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued the following statement. And based on this statement, all speculation should cease now, right?
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as Chief Justice as long as my health permits."
Apparently, the Chief is going nowhere. That is, as he states it, while his health holds out. For a man suffering from thyroid cancer and who is eighty years old, he seems to be holding his own. He’s definitely on the feisty side, as a reporter found out last week when they asked the Chief when he was stepping down, and the Chief replied, "That’s for me to know and you to find out."
Let’s face cold hard facts: Rehnquist is going nowhere. So, we are dealing with only one opening now. But some recent news I’ve found out has me a bit disturbed. First of all, there are four senators floating O’Connor’s name to replace Rehnquist should he step down. As he is not stepping down, this is a moot point. These are the idiots involved in the letter, and below is a link to that letter—Sens. Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. (I’d like to point out that Snowe and Collins belong to the Gang of 14.)
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/SOCltr.pdf
But what is most disturbing to me is that it seems that the president is removing his qualified jurists from his "short list" in favor of those with less contention. In other words, to ensure his nominee gets through without a fight, he’s willing to dip over to the moderates. He’s been cowed into doing this. Edith Jones, a staunch opponent of Roe is supposedly off his list, solely because of her stance. I guess the president missed the point that well over 70% of America finds abortion a deplorable act; and one that has cost this nation over thirty million aborted babies since the Supreme Court decided to legalize the murder of an unborn baby.
So, the president is being pushed around. This wouldn’t happen were I the president. First of all, I wouldn’t be consulting with senators over my nominees. Those people are none of their business until I announce them. Second, the seven Republicans that stabbed the party in the back over the crappy-ass deal that was put together would lose any and all support from the party. And as the person who is the head of the party, as president, yes I would have the power to do that. (I was incensed when Bush threw his support behind a RINO like Specter in Pennsylvania, instead of his opponent.)
He came to Washington to be a "uniter, not a divider," but he hasn’t done that. He can’t even unite his own damned party. And he went to Washington to be the President of the United States, not a mediator or a moderator. Presidents don’t negotiate. They act. Senators negotiate and capitulate. The president seems to be ready to cave into the Democrats on the issue of judicial nominees. The Circuit, appellate, and district courts are a nice starting point to place originalists, but the high court is the brass ring. We need them there more than anywhere else. Why?
Simply put, the buck stops with the high court. If lose your argument—your case—at the state level, you can appeal it up through the federal court system, and eventually to the Supreme Court, should they decide to accept it. (It’s not easy to get the Court to accept a case. Forty copies of a writ of certiorari [a common law writ issued from a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case] must be filed with the Court that includes a copy of the lower court opinion and statements discussing the legal questions, or the questions to be reviewed, and the reasons why the Court should hear the case.) As you can see, a lot of hoops have to be jumped through before the Court will even consider a case. It’s not like the movies where people think they can just appeal to the Court, and it will jump to their side to hear their argument.
The point of all of this is simple: The president doesn’t seem to think the opinion of this nation matters is he chooses to settle for moderate jurists on the Court. In short, this would be a disaster. Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Emilio Garza, Samuel Alito, etc., are originalist jurists. They believe in the rule of law as it stands now. Miguel Estrada is another originalist who remarked to the Senate Judiciary Committee that despite his personal misgivings about Roe it is the law of the land, and he would uphold that law. That, ladies and gentlemen is the thinking of an originalist. I don’t like Roe either, but Estrada and other originalists are correct. It is the law of the land. A single jurist cannot overturn the decision. A single jurist can tip the balance one way or another, but past cases revolving around Roe (Stenberg v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to be exact) have shown the Court’s reluctance to readdress Roe. The justices don’t want to touch Roe with a ten-foot pole.
But Roe isn’t the only issue that the Court is facing. After the Kelo decision, it became crystal-clear apparent that the Court hasn’t tossed aside it’s activist role. In the decision of McConnell v. FEC they took a clear step in striking down a basic, fundamental right protected under the First Amendment; that being our right to utilize our free political speech. A crucifix in a toilet is protected, but we can’t jump into the political debate sixty days outside of an election. That is basically what they set as precedent in McConnell. In Kelo, the Court disregarded the Fifth Amendment’s "Takings Clause," and ruled that the state has the right to seize your property, and give it to another person all on the argument of greater promised tax revenues. The key word is promised, as in promised by a developer in a development proposal. Tax revenues can’t be guaranteed.
What used to be guaranteed was our right to own property. What used to be guaranteed was our ability to continue in the debate over candidates during an election cycle up to and including the day of the election. What used to be guaranteed were our fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights—the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Court has seen fit to reexamine those rights, and rule on them today; when that is done our rights are firmly in danger, and that has become apparent in recent years.
Forget about the idea that a contentious nominee might irk the Democrats and moderate Republicans. The job of the president is to nominate the most qualified jurist to go to the bench. A moderate does not hold such criteria, as I see it. They will rule sometimes on the side of the law, but more often than not, I fear, they will rule based on their own personal preferences, or worse, the way public opinion is moving. We have already seen how public opinion can be manipulated by the media. And anyone who has a whit of sense regarding the judiciary knows that public opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is what the laws, statutes, rules, and regulations say. They’re in black and white. If they say you can’t do something, that is what is meant. It does not fall to the Court to decide to write a new law, or an addendum to such law. That is the role of the legislature and Congress, should it fall under Congress’s purview. But this does not fall to the role of a judge.
So, it’s time to call the president, and keep calling him until he gets it that the majority of people in this nation want originalists on the bench. I know I do, and I know I’m not alone. If I thought that I would even be worthy of a level of consideration, I’d offer myself up as a nominee. But I’m a nobody, well outside the establishment, and on many occasions, I’m reminded that I’m not a lawyer. Those people are right, but being a lawyer isn’t a prerequisite to be a Supreme Court justice. Regardless, it’s a nice thought, but wholly improbable.
But the president needs to be reminded by the citizens that we want the Court set right, and moved back to where it’s proper role is. By nominating a moderate, and caving into the Democrats in the Senate, and the Gang of 14 as a whole, the president is sending a message to America that he doesn’t care about our opinions—educated or otherwise. That, my friends, is unacceptable in my book. If he decides to do so, I will withdraw any further support of this president. The Courts and the war are my two big topics. I’m not a single-issue kind of person. But these two issues are important to me, and I place the Court as the highest domestic priority to the nation. It is essential that we have a Court that performs its proper duty.
When they do not do their jobs in "good Behaviour," we should have a recourse. We technically do, but the Senate is reluctant to do its job in holding them accountable, and removing jurists that step outside the parameters of their duties. I’m not talking about disagreeing with their decisions. I’m talking about things intricate within their decisions. Take the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the sodomy case. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy acted well outside the parameters of his duties by citing foreign law, namely English law. He cited the Sexual Offence Act of 1967, the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and the case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. Based on that alone, Kennedy should have been impeached.
Why? Because "good Behaviour" means that you base your decisions on American law. The laws of the fifty states, the regulations and statutes enacted by a duly-elected legislature, or direct civilian vote, and through the Constitution. Foreign law has no place in any interpretation of American law. This violated his oath as a Supreme Court Justice, and because he did so, the man should have been removed. He wasn’t. The Senate dropped the ball, and ignored their job. They can confirm them, and remove them.
The point I’m trying to convey is simple: We need to take back our courts. I thought Bush was doing a decent job when it came to his nominees, but the information I’m getting now as to who is and who isn’t on his short list is giving me fits. Granted, he has not officially named anyone, as yet. So, I may be getting agitated over nothing. But I cannot take a chance of letting this piece of information slip by without comment. President Bush campaigned on the platform of originalist judges. If he’s not going to stand by that promise, then we shouldn’t stand by him, or anyone else who believes that the Supreme Court needs more moderates.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:14 AM
<< Home