When Textualism Snaps: Harrison's Exit and the Mendoza Pivot
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Sam invokes historical framers' intent to counter Harrison's textualist stance on privacy rights, escalating the intellectual duel.
Harrison asserts that laws must derive solely from the Constitution, triggering Toby's rebuttal about natural laws.
Harrison abruptly ends the debate, calling the questioning rude, revealing his thin-skinned disposition.
Harrison exposes the transactional nature of his nomination, citing poll numbers while insulting Sam's youth.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Measured and paternal—annoyed but protective toward his staff, balancing ceremony and political necessity.
President Bartlet defends Sam's line of questioning, diffuses Harrison's complaint with wry paternalism, asks for a pause to make Harrison comfortable while waiting, and tacitly authorizes the staff to continue deliberating—maintaining decorum while absorbing the stakes raised.
- • Shield his staff from personal attacks and preserve staff morale.
- • Maintain institutional dignity and calm in the Oval Office.
- • Buy time to let the staff resolve the emerging nomination problem.
- • Presidential authority includes defending and directing staff actions.
- • Procedural decorum should be preserved even in heated exchanges.
- • Political problems can and should be handled internally before they become public.
Coolly urgent and purposeful—impatient for a pragmatic, conservative political solution.
Toby challenges Harrison's refusal to enforce natural law by asking 'Then who will?', then reframes the emerging problem into tactical terms—questioning confirmation based on a thirty-year-old paper and, after Sam's privacy argument, decisively recommends meeting Mendoza.
- • Prevent a politically and substantively risky confirmation.
- • Find an alternative nominee who aligns with the administration's long-term priorities.
- • Contain reputational and policy damage for the President.
- • Confirmation politics and legal philosophy are intertwined; both must be managed.
- • An old academic paper can become poisonous in a modern confirmation environment.
- • Practical political moves (like switching nominees) are necessary to preserve policy goals.
Offended and wounded prideful indignation—publicly dignified but privately humiliated.
Peyton Harrison defends a strict textualist stance, rejects judicial enforcement of natural law, bristles at questioning, cites polling and expected easy confirmation as evidence of his suitability, and exits the room offended and entitled.
- • Protect personal reputation and credentials from embarrassment.
- • Ensure an untroubled confirmation process based on political metrics.
- • Avoid being publicly chastised or treated as inexperienced.
- • Law must be grounded in the Constitution's text; judges shouldn't invent remedies from natural law.
- • Polling and institutional support validate a nominee's fitness.
- • Rude or aggressive questioning undermines respect for the bench.
Roberto Mendoza is not present but becomes the immediate strategic alternative when Toby proposes meeting him; his candidacy is invoked …
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The Constitution is the implicit interpretive anchor of the exchange: Harrison invokes constitutional text to defend textualism while Sam invokes the Framers' history to argue against a brittle reading. The document functions rhetorically rather than physically, structuring claims about authority and limits.
The Bill of Rights is explicitly invoked by Sam to point out Framers' anxieties about enumerating rights and to argue that unenumerated rights—privacy—must be protected. It operates as the historical/legal touchstone that undercuts Harrison's strict textualism.
The Internet and cellphones are cited concretely by Sam as examples of the privacy battleground the Court will face. They shift the abstract constitutional debate into foreseeable, technological consequences, pressuring the staff to consider long-term jurisprudence.
Health records are spoken of as a concrete example of privacy-sensitive data that a future Court will adjudicate, giving emotional weight and immediacy to Sam's argument about unenumerated rights and the consequences of a textualist bench.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
The Oval Office functions as the formal arena where institutional authority, personal ego, and policy stakes collide. Its ceremonial weight magnifies the confrontation: questions become tests of temperament and appointments feel consequential. The space enables both the public choreography of a nominee visit and the private tactical counsels that follow.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Sam's arguments contribute to the decision to meet Mendoza, shifting the nomination strategy."
"Sam's arguments contribute to the decision to meet Mendoza, shifting the nomination strategy."
"Toby's suggestion to meet Mendoza leads directly to Bartlet's official nomination of Mendoza."
"Toby's suggestion to meet Mendoza leads directly to Bartlet's official nomination of Mendoza."
Key Dialogue
"SAM: In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition: If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. The framers knew..."
"HARRISON: With all due respect, Mr. President, I find this kind of questioning very rude. ... Be that as it may, it's disgusting. We all know you need me as much as I need you. I read the same polling information you do. Seven to ten point bump, 90 votes, unanimous out of committee, I was courted. Now, you have me taken to school by some kid."
"SAM: It's not about abortion. It's about the next 20 years. Twenties and thirties, it was the role of government. Fifties and sixties, it was civil rights. The next two decades, it's gonna be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cellphones. I'm talking about health records, and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on a will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this? TOBY: Let's meet Mendoza."