We will have a hearing for Mr. Williams. Five days. Each committee member may ask up to five questions. However, no questions may be asked before Mr. Williams had made his opening statement.

What is your overall philosophy of the Justice System and its purpose in the Government?

Mr. Chair,

I move that the hearing be extended to five days after Mr. Williams delivers his opening statement. It has already been three, and we have yet to hear from him. Should he choose to speak to the committee now, it limits the time for questions by the members.

I yield.

Mr. Chair,

I second the motion.

I yield.

OOC: Sorry for delay, the holiday kept me awful busy.


Greetings esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee, I'm pleased to be here before you all. I would like to say I'm honored to be up for consideration to this position. I'm sure most of you know me. I am a former President of these United States and I've done all that I can to serve this country. It's now time for me to step into another role in our great American saga.

I encourage you all to ask questions, seek answers, and put me up to the same standards and rigorous examinations that you'd like to see me to put towards the law. I believe you'll all be pleased with what I offer. The law means so much in a civilized society, in fact, the law is what seperates freedom from anarchy.

As we proceed in this hearing I ask you all to bear in mind the consequences of any decision you might make. Justice is, inherently, the weighing of consequences and taking appropriate actions in response to that process. I believe that a justice must interpret the law, but he must not create it. I believe that a justice must, in fact, think in human terms rather than vague abstractions. A justice needs to be fair, balanced, and open-minded. I happen to believe I do all these things regularly, and would only do them more on the bench.

Throughout my time in law, politics, and government I've believed in three important principles outlined in our constitution. I believe that above and beyond all else we're entitled to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and in that specific order. Now, this is just a very broad outline of my ideals, and I will go further into detail if asked of me. I do not presume to be a mind reader so I will now turn the floor over to the Chairman and I encourage you all to ask questions so I can tell you what you all wish to know about my judicial values, beliefs, and principles.

Thank you.

Because I cannot see any problem with it, I'll just extend the hearing by five days, barring any objections.

Mr. Chair,
I object to this and the same motion in the Cross nomination hearing.

AGS RULE VI.1.C says:

c. The Committee of the Judiciary and Government Affairs shall begin hearings on Court nominees no less than seven (7) days after their nomination, and shall vote no less than twenty-one (21) days after their nominations.

Greg Williams was nominated on Nov. 13, 2004. According to the AGS rules, we must move to a vote by December 4. We have little more than a week remaining. In that week, we must accomplish both debate and hearing.

I yield.

If I may, a unanimous consent motion was made to suspend the rules. Being the committee dealing with the issue, it has a right to suspend rules in a unanimous fashion. Just thought I'd mention that to make sure it's clear. If you really want to speed the hearing for another reason that's fine, but if you don't object, the suspension motion would be reasonable and legal.

Mr. Chair,

seeing that Mr. Williams has no problems with this, I withdraw my objection.

Yield.

President Williams,

Thank you for joining us. Thank you for serving our country. My only question is:

What do you believe to be the single most important amendment - personally or otherwise - in the Bill of Rights?

What is your overall philosophy of the Justice System and its purpose in the Government?

President Williams,

If I may, what do you feel is the single most important decision the Supreme Court has ever made?

Mr. President Williams,

What is your opinion of the Supreme Court's plurality holding (vis-a-vis the seperation of powers argument) in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

This post has been edited by TexasTortfeasor on Nov 29 2004, 01:54 PM

I'm of the belief that all amendments in the bill of rights are absolutely vital to our American justice system and our American way of life. However, if you forced me to choose one politically, not judicially, I'd say the ninth amendment. Despite its infrequent citiation in any major cases save for Griswold it is absolutely essential. Without the ninth amendment to reserve powers to the people government could find a very narrow interpretation of the other 9 amendments and we'd end up with ONLY these rights. I highly value my right to marry as I choose, date, eat the food of my choice, etc. and without the ninth amendment not all of this would be possible.

Simply put to live up to its name. It's the justice system, it needs to ensure that we, as a nation, remain just. Primarily that is through upholding rights, often rights of the minority. The justice system is important to keep a check on the congress and the President. In a nation where elections are the only check on those two bodies, we risk feeling the damages of a direct democracy in which the rights of the minority are regularly disregarded and trampled upon. This leads me into Mr. Dunne's question about important supreme cases...

It's clearly Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Without judicial review we'd be that society where the rights of the few are ignored and defeated. With judicial review we insure that we will always have a just society where we're all entitled to a true equal protection under the law.