[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.