“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidarity to pure wind.”
President Bartlett didn’t wait until Chief Justice Noyner’s funeral to throw a name into the hat for a new Supreme Court justice nominee. In a hastily prepared speech in the East Room just twenty-four hours after announcing the recovery of Noyner’s remains, Bartlett introduced Shelly Ferguson-Haverton.
Haverton was a far left liberal activist judge from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the most controversial district judges in American history. A Cal-Berkley and Harvard law professor prior to her appointment to the 9th Circuit Court by President Johnson, she was the complete and total opposite of Noyner.
Conservatives and Republicans pounced on the announcement.
“President Bartlett has used this unfortunate and tragic opportunity to name the most liberal and anti-2nd Amendment judge on record. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to stop this nomination by any means necessary, including filibuster,” exclaimed Senator Perez from Texas while being interviewed on the steps of the Supreme Court.
The liberals, much more adept at messaging and managing public opinion than the GOP, launched into Ferguson-Haverton’s qualifications, including the fact that Haverton would be the first gay person to be nominated to the Court.
“Judge Haverton believes in equal rights for all and in common-sense gun legislation,” stated Bartlett, with Haverton and her female spouse standing next to her at the podium. “She believes, like most Americans, that all immigrants have rights and should be able to pursue the American dream. I urge the Senate to schedule hearings right away. We have seen in the past that the Supreme Court becomes dysfunctional without a full slate of nine sitting justices, effectively limiting decisions that would end in a 4-4 tie.
“Judge Haverton proudly represents the LGBT community and I’m especially delighted to nominate the first gay to the Supreme Court. Judge Haverton has an impeccable record on guaranteeing the constitutional rights of all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. I urge the Senate to take up a vote for her confirmation at the earliest possible time,” beamed Bartlett proudly, turning to Haverton.
“I would like the judge to say a few words.” Bartlett stepped aside so Haverton could position herself in front of the microphone as cameras clicked.
“Thank you, President Bartlett. It is an honor to be standing here in the White House and to be fortunate enough to be nominated for this highest honor. I promise the American people that I will follow the law, the Constitution, and will work to fulfill the promise of an equal America as designed by our Founders.”
She paused as the small crowd clapped.
“Throughout my career, I have made tough decisions on important cases. No matter my personal or political beliefs, I applied the law, and that is exactly what I would do as a justice on the Supreme Court.”
She stepped away from the microphone as President Bartlett returned to the podium.
“We will take just a few questions.”
“Judge Haverton, how do you feel about being the most overturned district judge in U.S. history to be nominated to the Supreme Court?” asked a Fox News reporter.
Haverton never flinched, but President Bartlett was not amused and was visibly agitated. This wasn’t an approved question, and it would not have been pre-approved by the White House press secretary.
“I’ve dealt with quite a few controversial cases and, in fact, some were eventually upheld in the Supreme Court. Even as a district judge, you don’t always see eye to eye on the interpretation of law with the appellate courts, or even with the Supreme Court, especially if the Court is out of balance,” Haverton deflected.
As she was answering that question, a Secret Service agent gently caught the right arm of the Fox News reporter, indicating he wasn’t going to be allowed a follow-up to his question.
“Judge Haverton, do you feel every American should have unfettered access to firearms?” asked an MSNBC reporter.
“Unfortunately,” the judge stated, “our Founders did not make the 2nd Amendment crystal clear, leaving it open to interpretation. Since it is likely I will hear cases related to this subject, I can’t really elaborate any further on this subject.”
“Judge, how do you feel about being the first gay to be nominated to the Supreme Court?” asked a New York Times reporter.
“It’s long overdue. My personal experiences with civil rights in the LGBT community and in my own life gives me special insight into these issues.”
“How would you rule on the Texas Crisis and whether a state has a right to offer an independence referendum to its voters?” blurted out a Dallas Morning News reporter, who was also not pre-approved to ask such a question.
President Bartlett stepped forward to make sure she answered this question instead of Judge Haverton.
“I will take that one,” she cut in as she looked sternly at the reporter. “First of all, that is not a case that is before the Supreme Court. In fact, we have no crisis in Texas any longer. The Texas Legislature has not taken this up and we do not expect them to. This issue was settled in 1865 and again in 1870 in the Supreme Court. That is all, folks. Thank you very much.”
Bartlett’s smiles to the cameras turned to visible anger after she left the East Room and was out of the hearing of the press. She glared at Chief of Staff Weingold.
“Milt, how in the hell did those two questions get allowed into the briefing?”
“Madam President, I have no excuse; this should not have happened and I will get to the bottom of it. I’m so sorry.”
“A career ended today for someone. I want you to tell me whose it is in the next hour.”
“Yes, Madam President. I will fix this immediately.” A steamed Weingold walked toward the West Wing, directly to the office of the Communications Director.