A blog by Miami Criminal Defense Lawyer Brian Tannebaum. Commenting on criminal law issues of local and national interest.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Can We Just Be Honest About The Supreme Court Nominee? Please?

I've had it.

This entire debate about the next nominee (or more probable 2) is laced with an air of intellectual dishonesty.

The Supreme Court is not a body whose sole purpose is to address one issue.

Yet it is clear that the nominee(s) will have a "litmus test," regardless of statements in the media to the contrary.

I am a husband, father, taxpayer, businessman, and I can tell you that in my daily life, I, like most Americans, see many important issues facing this country. Most people care about safety, health, education, transportation, the economy, and their own family and other relationships - yet there is a faction of our society that believes there is only one issue of any significance to the United Supreme Court - abortion.

I have to tell you I give credit to the Family Resource Council, who has come out and clearly stated that they want an anti-abortion nominee. Why is the administration trying to maintain credibility by stating that the nominee will have no "litmus test." This simply is not true.

I respect those on both sides of the debate, but the decision over the next justice or 2, is not one that should be determined by any one issue.

I once heard that justice is easily defined, justice is fairness.

The next nominee(s) should be intelligent, experienced, and be able to issue rulings based on an interpretation of the constitution, while administering the simple concept of fairness, a word I've failed to hear since the retirement of Justice O'Connor.


  1. The problem is that the Supreme Court was never meant to have to do this level of work on the constitution. I believe the term is "legislating from the bench."

    If only we could revise that pesky document instead of passing a few amendments and asking the non-elected officials to do the Congress' job.

  2. When Justice Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan, he was unanimously voted in by the Senate because of his high competency as a Jurist. Since the Clarence Thomas nomination, it’s all about political issues and not a jurist’s competency. Disgusting, Outrageous to be sure. Even the liberal ABA recently said that 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 7 recent GW appointments to the Federal Bench were most competent, yet politics took over, causing paralysis by analysis.

    Incidentally, it may be 4--Ginsburg and Stevens could very well retire, too. Today’s message is, if you don’t agree with me, you’re incompetent. Finally, abortion is a religious issue; we went wrong when it became political.

  3. Unbelievable blog. I can hardly wait to vist this
    site again.I'm consistently looking up blogs like
    Hey why don't you peep my criminal defense lawyer california blog site.