To the Supreme Court: I Quit

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 10 July 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

My name is John Armor. I’m a civil rights attorney who has practiced in the Supreme Court since 1972, a good run of 32 years mostly in First Amendment cases. Now I have resigned from the Bar of that Court. I state my reasons here, and urge others to join me in that decision.

“About 220,000” attorneys are in the Bar of the Supreme Court. The Court Clerk has no exact count, just this estimate. Since the Court only hears about 190 cases a year, obviously most of those lawyers have never set foot in that Court to present a case. A dirty little secret about the Court’s Bar is that most attorneys join just to get an elaborate wall hanging.

The criteria for membership are three: be a member of a state bar for three years, pay $100, and have your application signed by two other members of the Court’s Bar. In return, you get a large, impressive certificate (“suitable for framing”) with embossed paper, a nice gold seal, and your name inserted in calligraphy. And it’s easier to get now than it was in my day in 1976. I had to wait five years to join.

There’s a fringe benefit of hanging this certificate on your wall. Laymen who visit the office may not know how easy these memberships are to obtain. They may think you’re a “very bright lawyer” to be a member of the Supreme Court’s Bar. As the song says, “It Ain’t Necessarily So.”

Perhaps two percent, or about 4,000, of all those members actually practice in that Court. I’ll tell four war stories quickly, ending with the one case that caused me to resign from the Court’s Bar.

Over the years I’ve met and talked with men who have won the Super Bowl or the World Series. I’ve talked to other lawyers who have won cases in the Supreme Court. The parallel is a solid one. The feeling for a lawyer when he/she wins the first case in that Court is the same as the pleasure shown on Brooks Robinson’s face as he jumped four feet in the air from third base after the final out when the Orioles swept the Dodgers in ’66. Of course, lawyers don’t jump in the air and pour champagne on one another, but it’s the same thing. It’s the top of your profession.

My second Supreme Court case was my first win. September, 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe, emergency order to the State of Texas, requiring it to put Eugene McCarthy on its ballot as an independent candidate for President. That and other McCarthy cases led to the John Anderson legal victory in 1983, also as an independent candidate (in 1980). All those led to Ross Perot’s two candidacies. Eventually they’ll lead to the election of a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat as President. It’s happened before; the legal path is now open for it to happen again.

The second victory I’ll mention came in Round I of the Bush-Gore cases from Florida, in December, 2000. At first, the US Supreme Court neither affirmed nor reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. Instead, it vacated the lower court’s decision, and told it to do it over.

That case was heard by the US Supreme Court on a very accelerated basis. Lawyers managed to file only 14 briefs. Just one brief – mine – urged the Court to do what it unanimously decided, to vacate or “strike” the Florida decision. The high Court was doing the Florida Court a favor by giving it a chance to rethink and rewrite. The lower court failed to do that and again violated the US Constitution, as the Chief Judge of the Florida Court warned his colleagues in dissent.

Then the US Supreme Court took the case again. By a 7-2 vote the high Court determined that the lower court had violated the US Constitution and ended the litigation. (Yes, that vote was 7-2, not 5-4. Any reporter, politician or talking head who says otherwise either hasn’t read the case or is lying to you.)

We now turn to memorable losses. US Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995, was not one of the eighteen cases I briefed in the Supreme Court. But I was involved in the planning for that case. The Court decided 5-4 that states could not impose term limits on their own Senators and Representatives in Congress. I had urged the lawyers handling that case to pound the history of women’s suffrage in their preparation. The reason was that a chief opponent of term limits was predictably Justice Ginsburg. And she had built her legal career on the history of women’s rights, including the right to vote.

Why did I suggest that tactic? Because women originally got the right to vote state by state, not all at once nationally. So that might have painted Justice Ginsburg into a corner where she was forced to vote in favor of term limits. As a general rule on basic Supreme Court issues, it’s always wise to emphasize the history of the nation and of the Constitution more than narrow points of the law. In its best moments, that’s what drives the decisions of the Court.

Now I turn to the worst loss, the one which caused me to resign from the Bar of the Court last week. Last December, the Court handed down its decision in McConnell v. FEC. By a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that Congress had the right to tell citizens and groups of citizens that they couldn’t run broadcast ads before primary or general elections. The condition was that such ads, if they named or showed the photographs of any candidates for federal office, could only be run if the sponsors subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission.

The four dissenting Justices said in plain English that it was hard to imagine a clearer violation of the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech and of the press than this provision of the federal election finance “reform” act. That was the position I took in my brief in the case.

Thomas Jefferson probably understood the First Amendment freedoms better than any other political philosopher in American history. In 1787, he wrote that if forced to choose “between a government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.” His point was that with a free press we could recreate a free government; but without a free press, when the government became corrupt, there would be no cure except violence.

In a more rational time, the Supreme Court itself had the same view of the First Amendment. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957, it said that the freedoms in the First Amendment were the most basic ones because all other freedoms depend on them. “Every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association. This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.”

Does it make sense for a member of the Court’s Bar to resign over a disagreement with the Court’s conclusion in a single case? Generally, no. From the first time I read many of the Supreme Court’s decisions, I had a short list of decisions I disagreed with. The same is true of all other attorneys who practice in that Court. But the McConnell case was different.

The right of American citizens to speak freely about their political leaders and would-be leaders, especially when elections are being conducted, is the very heart of the Constitution. Absent that, all the guarantees in the world about free elections and democratic decision-making aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. In the McConnell case, five Justices of the Court drove a dagger into this heart of the Constitution.

Here are the operative words of the oath of office that every Justice makes on becoming a member of the Supreme Court: “... I will ... administer justice without respect to persons, ... faithfully and impartially discharge ... all the duties ... according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Like this oath, the one taken by members of the Bar is somewhat wishy-washy and touchy-feely compared to the bold clarity of the oath taken by the President as required by the Constitution: “... I will ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The commitment to the Constitution is present in all three oaths. What obligation falls upon a member of the Court’s Bar, when a solid majority of the Court itself become enemies of the Constitution in violation of their oaths of office?

Yes, I know that attorneys in general, and trial lawyers in particular, more often use statements of principles as window-dressing than as bases for action. When the average attorney says, “It’s about the principle, not the money,” the case is really about the money, not the principle.

And of all the principles that any citizen, not just attorneys, can be dedicated to, the most general, most long range, and most subtle are the basic tenets of the Constitution. So I don’t deceive myself. Of the 220,000 members of the Bar of the Supreme Court, perhaps five, maybe as many as ten, may follow my lead and resign from that Bar.

It doesn’t matter how many, or how few, choose to follow. The right decision is the right decision regardless of how many gather to the standard, or the outcome of the contest. This is as true now as it was among those who passed the Declaration of Independence on 2 July, 1776, or signed the Constitution on 17 September, 1787. We are a nation of principle, and if we ever fully fail to be that, we will become a nation of no consequence, regardless of whatever money and power we yet possess.

One last point: Alert readers will have noted that I took six months to resign after the decision to which I so strongly object. I had filed a brief in another case before the Court. I couldn’t resign, and potentially harm my client’s position, until after that other case was decided a week ago.

In a better world, hundreds or even thousands of lawyers would do as I have: resign from the Court’s Bar, and frame and hang the Clerk’s letter accepting the resignation next to their Bar admission. But this is not that better world, and we shall see what happens.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net

- 30 -

[Congressman Billybob]

Comments are in text. Let me know what you think.

[EggsAckley]

Bravo!!

[COEXERJ145]

When I saw the title I was hoping it was an announcement that someone like Stevens or O'Connor were retiring.

With the exceptions of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, the Supreme Court has shown that they're either unwilling or unable to uphold the Constitution. Some of their recent decisions have surprised even some of the more liberal Constitutional professors I know. I'd put good money they were going to uphold the 9th Circus decision on the Pledge of Allegiance (probably 5-4) and somehow the rational ones managed to get it tossed for now.

[PatrickHenry]

Around here that's known as an opus. But it's very principled. He followed his conscience. Good luck to him.

[Congressman Billybob]

Spread the word, if you appreciate this piece.

John

[sam_paine]

Principled. I know it's disheartening for the court to be so anti-constituional, but I suspect that the actual effect/implementation of the CFR restrictions is going to be meaningless. The money will find its way into speech (for better or worse.) And I suspect that Jefferson would recognize the speech anarchy cacophony that we will see crescendo at the end of this election cycle.

[SamKeck]

I've been reading your blogs since 1997 John, when you were a member of the Redneck Republicans on AOL at that time.

The above is definately one of your better efforts ... considering of course that, as usual, you fail to give appropriate credit to Mr. John Adams and his wife for their substantial influence on the long-term formulation of Mr. Jefferson's political philosophy over the years from 1776 until 1803.

[SteveH]

Scary. Is it time yet (in the Claire Wolfe sense)?

[combat_boots]

A frined and I went through bone-chilling set of logic premises the other day, that ended with these, which are is on point to this discussion:

Unless "the party" approves, 'we' don't want to hear it. If you are not a member of "the party," you are not a person, and have no rights.

Deliver us from evil. Good luck to you, sir.

[Happy2BMe]

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2004 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Hank Rearden]

Bravo, John!

And I'm appalled by, and will not support, the President who happily signed off on this assault on the First Amendment. He and Congress are just as complicit in this theft of liberties as the Court.

[Indy Pendance]

We have a real contender (Russ Darrow, popular car dealer around the state, and conservative) to oust Feingold in November. I have a feeling (really hope) Feingold has seen his last senate days. He only won by a fraction last time, less than 38,000 votes by a relative unknown.

You stuck to your principles, like you said, you got a certificate. I got tons of certs from various organizations that mean diddly if they don't uphold their stated beliefs. That is one of the main reasons I left my profession, I was tired of the two faced lies. Are more lawyers following suit?

[Libloather]

Dang bump..

[Hank Rearden]

Scary. Is it time yet (in the Claire Wolfe sense)?

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. But most people are still standing around numb and confused, knowing something's wrong with the country, but hoping it isn't quite as bad as they're beginning to suspect it is."

- Claire Wolfe

[ArmyBratproud]

"There’s a fringe benefit of hanging this certificate on your wall. Laymen who visit the office may not know how easy these memberships are to obtain. They may think you’re a “very bright lawyer” to be a member of the Supreme Court’s Bar. As the song says, “It Ain’t Necessarily So.” "

So the certificate is a lot like a Ph.D. then.....

[P8riot]

Bravo!

[Tribune7]

So this means you can't practice before the Supreme Court?

[Congressman Billybob]

I'm still cheerfully and publicly associated with the Redneck Republicans. And yes, I am well aware of the rich contribution of John Adams and his wife Abigail to the development of American political thought.

Thanks for your comment.

John / Billybob

[Mygirlsmom]

It doesn’t matter how many, or how few, choose to follow. The right decision is the right decision regardless of how many gather to the standard, or the outcome of the contest. This is as true now as it was among those who passed the Declaration of Independence on 2 July, 1776, or signed the Constitution on 17 September, 1787. We are a nation of principle, and if we ever fully fail to be that, we will become a nation of no consequence, regardless of whatever money and power we yet possess.

Wow! If only our elected leaders (and those appointed by them) had a speck of this type of integrity...

You might find this interesting. Russ Darrow,a well known owner of several auto dealerships in Wisconsin (who is mounting a challenge to none other than Russ Feingold, one of the co-creators of the CFR mess), might have to suspend advertising for his auto dealerships due to the advertising limitations of CFR: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jul04/242434.asp

(Sorry - my HTML skills are limited - I couldn't get the link to work.)

[Congressman Billybob]

That's exactly what I mean. I've just disqualified myself from any further practice in the US Supreme Court.

John / Billybob

[Stirner]

I felt exactly as you about the restrictions on political expression that Congress enacted (and, unfortunately, that the President signed). Now that the Court has, for good or ill, ruled, my question is: what can be done to repair the damage? The Court has said that Congress has the power to restrict political speech in the way it has. But Congress need not do so. McCain-Feingold could be repealed or changed. However, can Congress divest itself of the power that the Court has given it? Even with a repeal, I see no way that future Congresses could be bound from repeating the mistake short of a Constitutional amendment. I suppose an alternative would be for a future Court to rule contrary to the current one. Are there any other ways?

[Bob J]

John, resigning means there is one less able body defending us from future SC abuses. Capitulation only aids your enemy. Please reconsider.

[Navy Patriot]

Billybob, I always knew you are a bright guy, now I find you have outstanding ethics. It's always hardest to do the right thing.

Salutes NP

[Tribune7]

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Tribune7]

But I respect it.

[CGVet58]

I'm just a layman, but it seems to me that your angle on the money being there just the same isn't the point; the point is that the SC has put a restricting collar on free speech with this decision.

That the coin necessary to pay for political notices will be found attests to something different altogether - and might I add that in a way your logic (despite my percieving this to not have been your intent...) reinforces this collar... the fact that you show there is a way around this restriction to free speech recognizes a restriction that shouldn't exist in the first place.

[bayourod]

You're a Libertarian, you have never liked president Bush.

[Kerberos]

"The right of American citizens to speak freely about their political leaders and would-be leaders, especially when elections are being conducted, is the very heart of the Constitution. Absent that, all the guarantees in the world about free elections and democratic decision-making aren’t worth the paper they’re written on"

Which is what much of our Constitution is becoming.

[xzins]

You resigned over citizens being prevented from voicing their opinions prior to an election. You considered that to be such a heinous contradiction of the Constitution and the history of this nation and the ability of a free people to remain free that you saw your resignation as the right and moral thing to do. You also did so without any great hope that anyone would necessarily follow your lead.

For me it raises the question, "How do we get change?"

Some will argue that change comes from rational men recognizing problems, considering their options, and then choosing a new and better direction.

Some see change transpiring according to the gradual outworking of a dialectical model.

I see change coming via a crisis/rebirth or a crisis/death/new entity model.

We are fast approaching a national crisis of historic consequence. It will lead to a new birth of freedom and a re-establishment of our founding principles.

Or it will lead to death. And then another "dark ages."

And some day, human spirits yearning to be free will write a "declaration" that affirms their God-given right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

[Osage Orange]

It doesn’t matter how many, or how few, choose to follow. The right decision is the right decision regardless of how many gather to the standard, or the outcome of the contest.

Thank-you. For personal reasons those two sentences above couldn't have come at a better time for me.....

As always I appreciate your contributions..

Best FRegards,

[Hank Rearden]

You're a Libertarian, you have never liked president Bush.

The latter assertion is not true. I do like him, from the limited extent we're permitted to see the "real" guy - he seems like a decent sort.

However, he's anything but committed to doing anything about reining in government control over our lives and theft of our assets. His utterly unconstrained growth of Big Stupid Government makes that obvious, and his approval of the assault on the First Amendment seals it.

Why would I support politicians who want more and more Big Stupid Government? Why would any sane person want that?

[Smartass]

I THINK THIS COURT COULD DO BETTER

[EternalHope]

Nicely said. Based on solid principles, too.

Unfortunately, I think you made a mistake. Your resignation will not even make a ripple in the pond. We need people like you fighting the good fight, even when you know you will lose.

As a better man than I once said: All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

[Ichneumon]

Scary. Is it time yet (in the Claire Wolfe sense)?

It's certainly edging closer, anyway.

[neutrino]

It's a powerful piece, and clearly from the heart. I admire your dedication to principles.

Also, I thank you for providing an education about the significance of the Supreme Court bar.

Yet, I must agree with an earlier poster who expressed concern that your withdrawal would merely diminish the number of good attorneys - I speak now of good in the moral sense - who argue in front of the nine justices.

Who will argue the cases that you might have taken? Who will submit the briefs?

Will America be better off if your voice is silenced? I think it will not be.

Steady endurance may be the most difficult response to present developments; yet, it may be the best one.

[muawiyah]

The only point anyone need make is that AlQaida didn't see that it would be useful to them to aim an airplane at the Supreme Court.

[bayourod]

Very impressive career. Congratulations.

My take on McConnell is that the Supreme Court felt that the White House and Congress were trying to pass the buck to them instead of doing what both of the other branches knew was right,

The campaign reform Act was not the result of a public uprising, or a desire of either party or any public interest group, but rather was solely media driven by the Old Media that was miffed at Bush and wanted to help McCain punish him.

The Old Media was going to unmercifully crucify anyone who opposed the bill. Congress was too scared to defeat it, Bush warned that he couldn't afford to veto it, so they included a poison pill that guaranteed that the Supreme Court would void the Act.

However the Supreme Court was the least able of the three branches to handle the Old Media assault. You probably know who said something to the effect that; "The Executive branch has the Army, the Congress has the purse strings, but the Supreme Court only has magic."

What's your take?

[facedown]

The Bar of the Supreme Court has lost a Patriot.

I pray you have mentored a worthy successor.

[SamKeck]

Thanks for your response, John. I'll just close this out by mentioning to you that I miss hearing your occasional commentaries from the smokey Carolinas on the Phil Paleologos AM Radio Diner Show when it was broadcast on early AM radio on the West Coast until only a few months ago.

You and Phil made for some great political exchanges and highly entertaining commentary together.

Best Wishes,
Sam

[nothingnew]

CB...I don't balme you at all for what you've done. I would do the same.

I have updated my FMCDH sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the communist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, and the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. FMCDH(BITS)

FMCDH(BITS)

[sam_paine]

the point is that the SC has put a restricting collar on free speech with this decision.

Vet, I hear ya.

My point was that the SC, by its own overreaching, has likely reduced its own ability to create a restrictive collar of any kind.

Marshall grabbed this "Supreme" power, this court may cede it back.

I'm afraid we're headed toward a dissolution of this illusion of equal branches.

"The court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it!"

[Smartass]

In my humble opinion...
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court should have limited judicial powers. For example, final Constitutional questions should be returned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for finalization. They are the law makers, not the U.S. Courts! Moreover, there should be 27 SC justices, with 9 rotating out every six years. More cases would heard, and no political party would be in control. No person should have a lifetime appointment as a U.S. Appellate or District Judge. The Courts have abused this crap about "Judicial Independence." The Courts are suppose to hear and rule on cases, and not legislate. They have taken away the Constitutional separation of powers. What is presently most troubling, is that the Supreme Court is intertwining international law into their decision making process. Clearly unconstitutional.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What you wrote was beautiful, but I hate to see you do it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The pledge case would have had to have been 5-3 because Scalia was out of the mix. Other than that you're right.

[First_Salute]

John,

Thank you for your efforts and accomplishments.

Of late, I've begun to be concerned about the following:

Will the battle over Linux, put trial lawyer John Edwards in the White House?

Because of how prone to lawyer-izing everything to the point of trial lawyers uber all else, will again, despite election precincts' efforts, put the coming elections into the court system.

In which case, we may require your coming out of retirement.

[potlatch]

Your ideas are all very good ones Smart A!!

[COEXERJ145]

Yeah, I forgot about Scalia rescuing himself. Probably would have been 5-3 or even 4-4 which would be the same as upholding the 9th Circus.

[Congressman Billybob]

My voice is not silenced. When it is, it will be time to play Dixieland music and have a wake full of laughter.

John / Billybob

[brityank]

Freeper semper_libertas posted this. I liked it so much, I put it in my "keeper files":

There is no basis to suggest we live in a constitutional republic. The Constitution serves only to legitimize the government to the people, it does little to constrain the government.

The government is 100% under the control of 2 political crime syndicates. These crime syndicates are privately funded. They have a tightly controlled internal leadership structure. They have the largest, and most sophisticated propaganda machine ever seen by man. They are the only organizations which can legally broadcast falsehoods.

These privately-controlled organizations create 100% of all new laws.

They alone choose judges to serve their interests in the government courts.

They alone choose, and/or approve, candidates who will represent their interests at local, state and federal levels.

Attempts to create alternate syndicates are met with extreme hostility.

Attempts to apply Constitutional law against these syndicates are met with extreme hostility. Should such legal "attacks" against them be successful they then revise the laws to accommodate the interests of their power monopoly.

Both syndicates are competitive, but neither syndicate will ever do anything that would seriously jeopardize the public confidence in the other.

They need each other to present the image of a freely competitive political system. This is a carefully cultivated and protected false image. Anything that may arise that could seriously damage the legitimacy of either organization will be controlled at all costs by the other competitive syndicate. This includes matters of vote fraud, Presidential impeachment, influence of foreign powers, treason, bribery, murder, theft, and more. Much of the misbehavior is protected as a special class laws which exclude the elite from prosecution, though the average citizen can be prosecuted for the exact same behavior.

This is an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic.

Good rant, John. Keep us appraised on how many of your bretheren support your position.

[Congressman Billybob]

I tend to agree with your points about the consecutive failures of all three branches of the federal government.

John / Billybob