• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Statement by Former Attorney General Ed Meese on the Retirement of Justice Stevens

    Following the retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens today, it is now up to the United States Senate to ensure that the successor justice will be a responsible jurist who will remain faithful to the Constitution.

    Never has it been more important in our nation’s history that the next Supreme Court justice be a person with a proven commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as they are written. Many laws being passed and issues being raised in Washington will likely require judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It is critical that the life-tenured justices who will decide these cases will not bend the law to favor a political ideology or personally held belief, but rather interpret our framework as it is written.

    Senators should live up to their responsibility by asking tough questions to be sure that the nominee is committed to the Constitution. They should be given the time for careful deliberation, and not be pressured by arbitrary timelines. Americans do not want a Supreme Court Justice who views the Constitution as an “evolving document,” applies empathy standards to their cases or who substitutes transnationalist jurisprudence for the requirements of the Constitution.

    The President’s statements on the role of the court, including today when he said he sought a nominee with “a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” demand that his nominees receive thoughtful scrutiny, and that the nominee’s view of his or her role be distinctly expressed. Our system of justice and the American people require no less.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Statement by Former Attorney General Ed Meese on the Retirement of Justice Stevens

    1. Della jo Piarulli says:

      I think a good candidate should be screened thoroughly and should be very honest and true to fact.

    2. Kim, Texas says:

      I agree with you and yet find this point irrelevant. It appears to me that the 2 other branches of government are controlled by those who seek for power, even over the constitution. How would they choose anyone who supports the constitution? We obviously need to limit their power grab and save our nation and it's liberty, but how can that happen when the power hungry are the ones who are making this selection which will tip the final branch of the government into deciding to govern by what seems good now instead of their sworn duty to uphold the constitution which was developed owing to history, reason, wisdom and most notabley providence.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.