Remarks to Ethnic and
Minority Administration Supporters on the Supreme Court Nomination of Douglas
H. Ginsburg
Thank
you very much. You're forgetting my previous profession. With a hand like that
for entering -- [laughter] -- I might just turn around and exit. [Laughter]
Well,
8 days ago I announced my intention to nominate Judge Douglas Ginsburg to the
United States Supreme Court. Judge Ginsburg's qualifications were obvious:
valedictorian of his class at Cornell University; a brilliant student at the
University of Chicago Law School; 8 years as a professor at the Harvard Law
School, where he taught and wrote about the pressing legal and policy issues of
the day concerning various areas of economic regulation, such as broadcasting
and banking as well as antitrust law; 3 years in high government posts,
including service as Assistant Attorney General to the United States; then
nomination and unanimous Senate confirmation last year to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, one of the most
important and prestigious of the Federal Courts of Appeal -- and all this by
the age of 40.
Obviously,
remarkable credentials, but in the last day or so we've learned something else
about Judge Ginsburg, something that tells us about the times we live in, about
the reality of youthful error, and something that will -- according to how we
react to this news -- tell us about the kind of people we are ourselves. You
know, since the Republic began, the American people and those in public life
have had to deal with the issue raised by this recent news.
Many
of our most prominent public servants -- throughout our history and in recent
times -- have had to acknowledge errors they made in their youth or even more serious
errors committed when they were older. And yet if that public servant showed a
sincere sense of regret and a firm purpose of amendment, the American people
have always answered unhesitatingly: Continue to serve us. Well, get on with
your life; we understand and forgive. And we expect great things of you. In the
case of Judge Ginsburg, I think the American people will be no less
compassionate and no less wise. Judge Ginsburg erred in his youth. He has
acknowledged it. He has expressed his regrets. So, yes, sometimes youth can
have its drawbacks, but let us remember that throughout the history of our
Republic it has also shown itself to great advantage.
You
know, at a Cabinet meeting earlier this week, I was remarking that Judge
Ginsburg will be joining the list of remarkable Supreme Court Justices
nominated at a relatively early age: Chief Justice John Marshall, nominated at
the age of 45; Justice John Marshall Harlen, author
of the dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson that laid
the basis for the landmark decision in Brown versus the Board of Education,
nominated at the age of 44; Justice William O. Douglas, a judge we
conservatives often disagreed with, but whose intelligence we respected,
nominated at the age of 40; and Justice Byron White, one of the finest minds on
the Court today and quite a backfield man also -- [laughter] -- nominated at
the age of 44. Well, as I say, I was going through this list when Education
Secretary Bennett spoke up. Leave it to Bill Bennett, the former teacher. ``Mr.
President,'' he said, ``never mind these Justices who started to interpret the
Constitution in their early forties. James Madison helped to write the document
at the age of 36.''
But
I nominated Judge Ginsburg, and we're all here today not just because of his
professional qualifications but, most important, there is his legal philosophy
of judicial restraint. Judge Ginsburg believes -- as I do and as do you, as do
all those who have a proper and balanced understanding of the American system
of government -- that it is the role of the courts to interpret the law, not to
make it. And this goes to the very root of what we Americans believe. For to
the extent that judges make the law -- no matter how high or fine their
intentions -- to that extent, we cease to be a democracy governed by the people
and become governed instead by the very few. This is not what the Founders like
Then
there is a second matter. I have mentioned Judge Ginsburg's academic
credentials, but there is also his dedication to the cause of justice best
evidenced by his record as Assistant Attorney General. As head of the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, Assistant Attorney General Ginsburg
made criminal enforcement the Division's first priority. Under his leadership,
the Antitrust Division filed criminal charges against 87 corporations and 80
individuals. And by the time I nominated Assistant Attorney General Ginsburg to
the Court of Appeals, the Antitrust Division was conducting a record number of
grand jury investigations of antitrust felonies.
Assistant
Attorney General Ginsburg also initiated a special effort to uncover
bid-rigging in connection with Federal procurement, in particular, on
procurements for the Department of Defense. This effort led to more than 30
grand jury investigations into possible bid-rigging and price-fixing on
contracts at military installations across the country, and in time it's
certain to save the American taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars.
The Wall Street Journal said this about Assistant Attorney General Ginsburg,
and I'll quote: ``When it comes to pursuing price-fixing, bid-rigging, and
other blatantly criminal activities, the scholarly former law professor acts
more like an aggressive, hardnosed prosecutor, and he goes out of his way to
demand stiffer jail sentences for executives convicted of such crimes.''
Judge
Ginsburg has thus put into actual practice his belief in the fair and firm administration
of justice; in justice that respects the rights of criminals, but that respects
as well the rights of victims of crime and of society itself. Dedication to the
cause of justice, a brilliant mind, remarkable and extensive experience in the legal
profession -- in short, Judge Ginsburg can become a great member of the Court.
When
I nominated Judge Ginsburg to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just a
year ago, one Democratic Senator called Judge Ginsburg -- and again I'll quote:
``an openminded nominee with a sense of compassion --
I think we're fortunate to have this nominee, and I would hope that we would
act expeditiously to assure that he can join his colleagues on the Circuit
Court.'' And the name of the Senator who made that statement: Edward Kennedy.
That's
the type of dedication we've seen in Judge Ginsburg: a complete commitment to
his profession and to those judicial principles that have guided this country
for over 200 years. In its place, of course, the struggle between political
parties and political points of view is important, even vital, to the health of
the Nation. But the Federal judiciary is not that place.
On
the contrary, the Federal judiciary must remain impartial in order to command
the respect of the Nation and to ensure that we remain governed by laws
properly enacted, not by the views of whatever group happens to hold temporary
power. Our Founders understood and intended this from the first. In the words
of Alexander Hamilton: ``The complete independence of
the courts of justice is essential in our Constitution.'' This places upon the
Senate an obligation of the utmost importance. For in confirming a nominee to a
seat on the Supreme Court, the Senate must set politics aside, apprising a
nominee in an atmosphere of reason and calm.
And
as I said in announcing my selection of Judge Ginsburg, the confirmation
hearings should begin promptly. The integrity of the nomination process and the
independence of the judiciary demand that hearings be held within the next few
weeks. Moreover, it's critical that the Supreme Court, with its increasingly
burdensome caseload, be put back to full strength. Justice Powell's seat has
now been vacant for over 4 months -- one of the longest vacancies ever.
Certainly, there is no more pressing business before Congress than filling
Justice Powell's vacant seat on the Court. And I urge the Senate to exercise
its constitutional responsibility to vote on this nomination before it adjourns
for the year.
There
is a vital lesson to be learned in what the Nation has just been through. In
the words of Judge Bork himself: ``Federal judges are not appointed to decide
cases according to the latest opinion polls . . . but when judicial nominees
are assessed and treated like political candidates, the effect will be to chill
the climate in which judicial deliberations take place, to erode public
confidence in the impartiality of courts, and to endanger the independence of
the judiciary. This should not and, indeed, must not be permitted to occur
again.''
What
it comes down to is this: It is my duty, according to my oath of office, to
ensure the integrity of the nomination process and the independence of the
judiciary. With Judge Ginsburg soon to be before the Senate, I am determined to
use all the powers at my disposal as President to do just that. One other thing
that repeatedly is being said over and over again about Judge Bork and now
about this judge already: that somehow this single new Justice would just
totally undo everything that has ever been done that's right and would take
positions that would just turn around our country. And we've heard that same
Senator that I quoted speak about all the things that would happen to the
people of
Did
anyone ever stop to think that no one judge can do that.
What they're saying is they think there are already four judges on the Supreme
Court who would do those things if they had a fifth vote to make them a
majority. Well, I feel that we've got a Supreme Court that's been doing pretty
well by us for quite some time. And I wonder if we shouldn't just start
thinking about -- can one man do all those horrible things that they suggest
unless he's got four more horrible men on the Court with him?
Well,
I want to thank all of you for being here and for being willing to listen to
us. And God bless all of you. [Applause] I'll just bashfully leave.
Note: The President
spoke at