President Bush Blasts Senate’s ‘Search and Destroy’ Judicial Review

Judiciary

President Bush Blasts Senate’s ‘Search and Destroy’ Judicial Review

Posted Nov 15, 2007, 05:00 pm CDT
By Molly McDonough

UPDATED: President Bush spoke to the Federalist Society on Thursday, complaining that "judicial lawlessness" threatens democracy and must be stopped.

According to a White House release, the president says that too many people interpret the Senate's advise-and-consent role in federal judiciary confirmations to mean "search and destroy."

The president is among many high-profile speakers, including several U.S. Supreme Court justices, who have or will appear before the Federalist Society, which is celebrating its 25th year at a convention in Washington, D.C.

To applause, the president said, "Members of the Federalist Society believe in a simple proposition: Our written Constitution means what it says. One would not call that a radical statement—I certainly don't see how holding such a commonsense view can be considered controversial. I share your devotion to the Constitution—and I'm proud to be standing with you tonight."

The president later complained that "activist judges" are a threat to the constitutional balance of government. He added that judges must resist the temptation to encroach on the powers that the Constitution accords to others.

Bush said that for the judiciary, "resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy—and it needs to stop."

Also Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the meeting, similarly criticizing the confirmation process, the Associated Press notes.

"We're doing great damage. I fear how much damage we will do to our judiciary over time," Thomas is quoted saying. His nomination was nearly derailed ion 1991. Thomas told the crowd that Justice Byron White once told him that only 10 days elapsed between White's nomination by President Kennedy and his confirmation in 1962. "What are we doing that's improved the system we had in place for 200 years ... I daresay nothing."

Other coverage:

Thomas Addresses Federalist Society (The BLT)

Bush to take aim at judicial confirmation process (The Hill)

Bush: Confirmation Process Needs Reform (UPI)

The Federalist Society Will Be Partying Like Rock Stars (WSJ Law Blog)

Updated at 10:30 p.m., CST.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Richard Foote - 10 months, 3 weeks, 11 hours, 39 minutes ago

All this, coming from a guy who politicized the AG’s office! Isn’t it ironic that Bush complains that,” “activist judges” are a threat to the constitutional balance of government. He added that judges must resist the temptation to encroach on the powers that the Constitution accords to others.” Kettle, meet the pot!
Posted by Bryan White - 10 months, 3 weeks, 10 hours, 48 minutes ago

I wonder what our President thinks the meaning of “consent” is? I learned when I was very young that when I asked for my parent’s consent to do something they would spend a lot of time asking me very specific questions about what I was actually going to be doing. I wish we had had this leadership then so I could have pointed out that my asking was enough and they weren’t supposed to look for reasons that I might not want them to know.
Posted by J.D. - 10 months, 3 weeks, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

NOTE to poster above: If you actually read the speech, you’ll get your answer:

“the Senate is no longer asking the right question—whether a nominee is someone who will uphold our Constitution and laws. Instead, nominees are asked to guarantee specific outcomes of cases that might come before the court. If they refuse—as they should—they often find their nomination ends up in limbo instead of on the Senate floor.”

HE CONTINUES (and note the second paragraph, ABA):

“Our Constitution prohibits a religious test for any federal office, yet when people imply that a nominee is unfit for the bench because of the church where he worships, we lose something.

“When a bar association issues what it claims are objective ratings about a nominee’s professional qualifications, yet suddenly and without explanation, lowers the rating of a nominee on the eve of his confirmation hearing, we lose something.

“When government officials do their jobs and make difficult legal decisions, only to find their decisions later become the source of outrageous partisan allegations, we lose something.

“And when the wife of a distinguished jurist proudly attends his hearing and is brought to tears by ugly and unfounded insinuations that her husband is secretly a bigot, we lose something.”

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Judiciary