While Justice Sleeps(124)
With carefully practiced gravitas, Solicitor General David Ralston rose and stood solemnly before the eight justices.
“Madam Justice and may it please the Court, I have requested this opportunity to state the categorical objection of the United States to this proceeding. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall decided that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction did not extend over U.S. federal government officials. President Stokes accepted the tendered resignation of Justice Howard Wynn, not the United States. Under that precedent alone, this case should not be before this court. Moreover, no motion to void a resignation exists within the canons of law or as a federal question. Ms. Keene cannot legally achieve her objective, which is to unring a bell. I challenge her standing and the ability of this Court to entertain her cause célèbre.”
Avery stirred at her seat, ready to object, but the Chief spoke: “We received your brief, Mr. Ralston, and while this Court agrees with your concerns about this action, we have determined to hear oral arguments. Your objection, and that of your client, is duly noted.”
“Thank you, Madam Chief Justice.” A visibly hostile Ralston returned to his table and sat heavily.
“Ms. Keene.”
Avery moved to the lectern and waited for the white light to flare. Apprehension shivered over her, but she forced her voice to project a confidence she prayed she’d feel. “Madam Chief Justice and may it please the Court. Today is an unusual plea for remedy from this body. On Monday, June 26, I submitted a letter of resignation for Justice Howard Wynn, acting as his legal guardian. Subsequent to that action, I filed the complaint before you, the intent of which is to void the letter of resignation. I do so on the grounds that the resignation was not tendered in the best interest of Justice Wynn and instead was the result of coercion.”
Justice Bringman, whose vitriol against liberals found its most consistent target in Justice Wynn, opened with the first volley: “While my colleagues have opted to hear this petition on what I find to be spurious legal grounds, I have been democratically outvoted. But for my peace of mind, Ms. Keene, can you tell me how this is a valid case against the United States? Would it not be more accurate to file against the president, as the person who accepted the resignation?”
Avery flashed to moot court, the rite of passage for law students who wanted to litigate. While most TV lawyer shows focused on the fight between the prosecution and the defense, law students and grown-up attorneys knew that the real agony came from judicial grilling. Being forced to defend your every thought in front of hostile judges who faced no limits to what they could ask and how deeply they could insult you. Bracing herself, Avery answered almost steadily, “I stand by the accuracy of this filing, as the president stands in the stead of all American citizens. Therefore, the United States is the only actor with the ability to accept the resignation of Justice Wynn or to vitiate it.”
Surely, she told herself, no one could hear the thumping beat of her heart. “A Supreme Court justice is nominated by the president, confirmed by the United States Senate, and seated by the Supreme Court. The act of becoming a Supreme Court justice requires the participation of all three branches of the federal government. By extension, any action related to Justice Wynn must involve the entire government too—the United States of America.”
Bringman went silent, and Justice Lindenbaum interjected, “Are you certain this is a question subject to judicial review?”
Before Avery could respond, Bringman recovered. “More importantly, is a resignation a question subject to this Court’s review? Why shouldn’t this matter be in front of a probate judge?”
The barrage of questions from Bringman met with appreciative nods from two others on the bench. Two more votes she wouldn’t get. The shiver of apprehension morphed into a cloaked shudder. “The probate courts are ill-equipped to address the complexity of this issue, Justice Bringman. The lower courts agreed and promptly transmitted the complaint to this body.”
“Maybe they sped it through because they understood the weakness of your contention. And the paucity of your evidence.” He thumbed through a ream of pages. “Special Agent Robert Lee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation states that your mother was held hostage and rescued on Monday.”
“Correct.”
“This is your proof of coercion?”
“Yes, Justice Bringman.”
“Do you have evidence that President Stokes somehow participated in the abduction of your mother or in her incarceration?”
Of course she didn’t, but she couldn’t say that so plainly. “The appropriate standard is not who coerced me, but whether I was indeed coerced. Agent Lee’s affidavit clearly states that the man holding my mother hostage was an employee of Major Will Vance, liaison to the president.”
“Which proves,” chimed in Justice Newell, “only that Major Vance should improve his hiring practices. Can you demonstrate active involvement by President Stokes? Yes or no?”
Avery hesitated, but found no alternative. “No. I cannot demonstrate active involvement by President Stokes. However—”
“I fail to see why his acceptance of the resignation should be voided. He did not act against the public’s interest or Justice Wynn’s interest. You did.”
“I had no choice.”