    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [November 15, 2007]
    [Pages 1475-1478]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Federalist Society's 25th Annual Gala Dinner
    November 15, 2007

        Thank you all very much. Thank you. So much for the dress code.
    [Laughter] I'm honored to be with you. Thanks. I appreciate being with
    an organization that understands the value of free speech, so much so
    that Gene asked if I'd give one. [Laughter]
    I told him I'd be happy, but I warned him that if you invite me back for
    the 30th anniversary, it's going to cost some billable hours. [Laughter]
        In just a quarter century, the Federalist Society has transformed
    itself from a student organization into a vital national institution.
    You've earned a reputation across the ideological spectrum for open
    debate and intellectual rigor. 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 could be considered controversial. I
    share your devotion to the Constitution, and I'm proud to be standing
    with you tonight.
        I was also proud to stand yesterday at the Department of Justice
    with America's new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. Attorney General Mukasey is a decent man, an outstanding
    lawyer, and a strong leader, and he needs a strong team to support him
    at the Department of Justice. And so in consultation with the Attorney
    General, earlier today I announced the
    individuals I
    will nominate to serve in five senior positions. And I look forward to
    working with the United States Senate to fill these positions as quickly
    as possible.
        I'm proud to be in such distinguished company as Justice Antonin
    Scalia and, of course, Maureen. I'm proud to be here

    [[Page 1476]]

    with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife
    Ginni; Justice Sam Alito and Martha. I'm
    fortunate to have been able to pick two members of the U.S. Supreme
    Court, and I'm very proud of the service rendered by Justice John
    Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.
        I appreciate the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, joining us. And she kindly brought her husband, Senator
    Mitch McConnell; from the
    great State of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.
        I appreciate the attendance of former Attorney General Ed
    Meese, former Attorney General Bill
    Barr. How about your master of ceremonies,
    my good friend Ted Olson. I thank Gene
    Meyer and Leonard Leo.
        When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear
    understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to
    prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to
    separate the Government's powers into three coequal branches: executive,
    the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital
    role in our free society; each serves as a check on the others. And to
    preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities and resist the
    temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to the
    others.
        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 the
    temptation and make law instead of interpreting it. Such judicial
    lawlessness is a threat to our democracy, and it needs to stop.
        Tonight I will discuss a judicial philosophy that is based on what
    our Founders intended. I'm going to talk about the importance of having
    good judges who adhere to this philosophy. And I will explain the need
    to reform a confirmation process that is making it more difficult to
    persuade decent and intelligence people to accept the call to public
    service.
        The President's oath of office commits him to do his best to
    ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
    I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean what they say.
    And I ask my nominees to the Federal bench to take seriously their own
    oath to uphold the Constitution, and that is because I strongly believe
    our freedom depends on the willingness of judges to be bound by the
    Constitution and the law.
        Others take a different view. Advocates of a more active role for
    judges sometimes talk of a ``living Constitution.'' In practice, a
    living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean. They
    forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to
    adhere to its words. It is--[applause]. Ours is the oldest written
    Constitution in the world. It is the foundation of America's experiment
    in self-government, and it will continue to live only so long as we
    continue to recognize its wisdom and division of authority.
        In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, one judge I nominated to the bench used the analogy of a
    baseball umpire. He said: ``Umpires don't make the rules; they apply
    them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure
    everybody plays by the rules.'' But when people see the umpire rooting
    for one team, public confidence in our courts is eroded, the sense of
    unfairness is heightened, and our political debates are poisoned. So we
    will insist on legislatures that legislate, on courts that adjudicate,
    and on judges who call the game fairly.
        To be a good judge takes a special kind of person. A judge needs to
    be someone who is learned, someone who has common sense, and someone who
    has a healthy respect for precedent and the law. In addition, a judge
    must be independent enough to resist the temptations of politics or
    favorable treatment in the media, and a judge must be modest enough to
    appreciate the limited role he plays under the Constitution. This
    combination of learnedness and independence and modesty is not always
    easy to find, especially here in Washington,

    [[Page 1477]]

    DC. [Laughter] But it is absolutely essential for a judge.
        These are the qualities you'll find in my nominees to our 13 Federal
    appeals courts. These appellate courts play a vital role in our legal
    system. While the Supreme Court may decide fewer than 100 cases in a
    year, the Federal appellate courts decide more than 30,000. That means
    that for most criminal appeals, for most civil appeals, and on most
    constitutional issues, the decisions of the appellate courts will be the
    law of the land.
        As President, I've nominated many fine Americans to these courts.
    They understand that their role is to be the servant of the law, not its
    sovereign. I'm proud of the kind of men and women we now have sitting on
    these courts, judges such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Bill
    Pryor, judges like Brett
    Kavanaugh and Leslie
    Southwick.
        Today I announced seven more outstanding judicial nominees
    for the
    district and circuit courts. And I look forward to working with the
    United States Senate to confirm these good men and women as soon as
    possible.
        Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to act on many of my other
    nominees. At times, it has imposed a new and extraconstitutional
    standard, where nominees who have the support of the majority of the
    Senate can be blocked by a minority of obstructionists. As a result,
    some judgeships go unfulfilled for years. This leads to what are called
    judicial emergencies, vacancies that cause justice to be degraded or
    delayed. When Americans go to court, they deserve swift and fair
    answers, and the United States Senate should not stand in their way.
        Three of my nominees to the
    courts of appeals have been waiting for a vote for more than a year.
    They include one of the organization's founders--one of this
    organization's founders, a man who served our Nation nobly as the Acting
    Attorney General, Peter Keisler. These delays are wrong. It is an
    abdication of the Senate's responsibilities under our Constitution. And
    I call on Senate leaders to give these nominees, and all my nominees,
    the up-and-down vote they deserve on the floor of the United States
    Senate.
        Senate confirmation is a part of the Constitution's system of checks
    and balances. But it was never intended to be a license to ruin the good
    name that a nominee has worked a lifetime to build. Today, good men and
    women nominated to the Federal bench are finding that inside the
    beltway, too many interpret ``advise and consent'' to mean ``search and
    destroy.''
        As a result, 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.
    This is a terrible way to treat people who have agreed to serve their
    nation. It's a sad commentary on the United States Senate, and every
    time it happens, we lose something as a constitutional democracy.
        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

    [[Page 1478]]

    insinuations that her husband is secretly a bigot, we lose something.
        Everyone in this room has watched a good person who has had his or
    her name unfairly tarnished by the confirmation process. What you do not
    see are the good men and women who never make it to the confirmation
    process.
        Lawyers approached about being nominated will politely decline
    because of the ugliness, uncertainty, and delay that now characterizes
    the confirmation process. Some cannot risk putting their law practices--
    their livelihoods--on hold for long months or years while the Senate
    delays action on their nominations. Some worry about the impact a
    nomination might have on their children, who would hear dad or mom's
    name unfairly dragged through the mud, so they decide to remove
    themselves from consideration.
        When people like this decline to be nominated, they miss out on a
    great calling. But America is deprived of something far more important:
    the service of fair and impartial judges.
        This is bad news. There's also good news, and it's here in this
    room. Thanks in part to your efforts, a new generation of lawyers is
    rising. A new culture is taking root in our legal community. And
    principled men and women who understand the Constitution and are able to
    defend it are finding their way to our Nation's law schools and law
    faculties and law firms and even to the corridors of power here in
    Washington, DC.
        One of these good men is someone you
    know well. He was nominated by my father, and his confirmation process
    is a tale of all that is nasty and unkind in Washington. It is also a
    tale of perseverance and triumph.
        On the day this good man was to be sworn
    in as a Justice on our Supreme Court, he was driving to the White House
    with his wife. As they waited at an
    intersection to make a turn, an 18-wheeler came barreling up beside
    their car and came to an abrupt stop. After a few seconds of
    trepidation, husband and wife watched as the truck driver rolled down
    his window, broke into a smile, and gave them a big thumbs up. In the
    fine memoir he recently published, Justice Clarence Thomas describes the
    moment this way: ``Virginia and I looked at each other in astonishment
    and then thanked God for the good people of this country.''
        My appeal to you is this: Have faith in the good people of this
    country. Be true to the principles that brought you here tonight. And
    never lose that sense of wonder you felt when you first beheld the
    truths and wisdom of our founding documents.
        Thanks for having me, and may God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 7 p.m. at Union Station. In his remarks, he
    referred to Eugene B. Meyer, president, Theodore B. Olson, member, board
    of visitors, and Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president, Federalist
    Society.