Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
By William Bailey (01/10/03)
For a great number of years, I have heard reference made to the precept that, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied". But, until today, I never really thought to check the origin of the statement. It is not a recently "coined" precept. As a matter of fact (from what I can find) it dates back to the Magna Carta (1215) where item number 40 of the 63 specific points of that document state: "To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice."
The Founding Fathers confirmed their belief in this doctrine with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (part of the Bill of Rights) stating, "In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district hall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
But, what about justice for the "justices" ? Does the original precept, confirmed by the Founders not apply to them ? When someone is nominated by the President of the United States to fill an existing vacancy in the Federal judiciary, should they not be accorded the same recognition as one accused of a violation of criminal law ?
By all reports, a number of the vacancies in the Federal judiciary have been deemed, "judicial emergency" positions. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently re-confirmed this. The numbers indicate that one seat on the Sixth Circuit of Appeals has been vacant for 1,220 days; one on the Fifth Circuit, vacant for 2,179 days; and one on the Fourth Circuit for 3,106 days. President Bush nominated people to fill these vacancies back on May 9, 2001. In just a short three more months, that means that those nominations will have languished some 730 days and when you add that time frame to the existing period of vacancy, the fact that these courts are operating in an "under-manned" status is untenable.
So, I ask again . . . "where is justice for the ‘justices' " ?
And, in considering this issue, (if we do so fairly and honestly) we must again ask a probing question . . . When and how does a committee of the U.S. Senate get its power and authority to function outside the Constitution of the United States when it comes to the "advice and consent" responsibility given to the Senate by that Constitution ?
By way of reminder, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution (in addressing the powers of the President) states: " He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States . . . ". Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in this Article nor anywhere else in the Constitution of the United States can I find where a committee of the U.S. Senate is delegated the authority to function on behalf of the full Senate. And, I have not been able to get anyone to document for me where any such authorization is granted.
Now, we hear that the Senators from New York (Schumer), Illinois (Durbin) and probably Massachusetts (Kennedy) plan to filibuster the re-nomination of sitting Federal judge Charles S. Pickering, Sr. to a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals . . . a vacancy that has existed for 2,179 days. At the same time, there is an indication that if this nomination ever makes it to the full Senate, Judge Pickering would be confirmed to fill the vacancy.
It doesn't really matter to me how you might feel about Judge Pickering. But, in all conscience, the decision about whether to elevate him to the Fifth Circuit should be made on facts and his record. And, folks . . . those facts, along with his record, are not being fairly, accurately, and honestly being made known to the American people. (And, if challenged . . .that statement can be documented).
Once again, what we are seeing is that a judge who has committed himself or herself to the simple interpretation of law as opposed to being a "judicial legislator" is rejected by those who have, long since, departed from what was intended by the Founders and stated in the Constitution.
To the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . do you have the courage, values, ethics and respect for the Constitution of the United States to do what it says . . . submit the nomination (regardless of who it might be) to the full Senate for a vote ?
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" . . . what about "justice for the ‘justices' " ?
What say you, Senators ?
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
