[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 10289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE JUDICIARY AND THE RULE OF LAW

  (Mr. MILLER of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the presidential election 
in 2000 was effectively decided by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, 
Justice Stephens said: ``It is the confidence in the men and women who 
administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of 
law . . . Although we may never know with complete certainty the 
identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the 
identity of the loser is perfectly clear: It is the Nation's confidence 
in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.''
  Mr. Speaker, Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike did accept 
the Supreme Court's decision and the legitimacy of President Bush's 
election. But, Mr. Speaker, what confidence will Americans have in 
judges nominated without consultation, without the advice and consent 
that the Constitution provides for, and confirmed by a bare majority 
despite strong objections to the impartiality of those judges, 
confirmed only by shamelessly ignoring the rules that have governed the 
Senate for more than two centuries? Mr. Speaker, why should Americans 
accept the decisions of those judges as legitimate? And, Mr. Speaker, 
just what will be left of the rule of law?

                          ____________________