Supporting Judges Who Uphold the Law--Judicial Reform: Courts That Work, Laws That Make Sense

In the federal courts, scores of judges with activist backgrounds in the hard-left now have lifetime tenure. Recent events have made it clear that these judges threaten America’s dearest institutions and our very way of life. In some states, activist judges are redefining the institution of marriage. The Pledge of Allegiance has already been invalidated by the courts once, and the Supreme Court’s ruling has left the Pledge indanger of being struck down again – not because the American people have rejected it and the values that it embodies, but because a handful of activist judges threaten to overturn commonsense and tradition. And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which our nation was founded. President Bush has established a solid record of nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic, and Republicans in the Senate have strongly supported those nominees. We call upon obstructionist Democrats in the Senate to abandon their unprecedented and highly irresponsible filibuster of President Bush’s highly qualified judicial nominees, and to allow the Republican Party to restore respect for the law to America’s courts.

The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit federal court jurisdiction; for example, in instances where judges are abusing their power by banning the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Additionally, we condemn judicial activists and their unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion in the public square.

Americans have the right to a judicial system they can trust. There is no question that the need for reform extends to the judicial branch of government. Many judges disregard the safety, values, and freedom of law-abiding citizens. At the expense of our children and families, they make up laws, invent new rights, free vicious criminals, and pamper felons in prison. They have arbitrarily overturned state laws enacted by citizen referenda, utterly disregarding the right of the people and the democratic process.

The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and reestablish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal — setting terms for federal judges, for example, or using Article III of the Constitution to limit their appellate jurisdiction — but the most important factor is the appointing power of the presidency. We applaud Governor Bush’s pledge to name only judges who have demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution.

Reform of the legal profession is an essential part of court reform. Today’s litigation practices make a mockery of justice, hinder our country’s competitiveness in the world market and, far worse, erode the public’s trust in the entire judicial process.

Avarice among many plaintiffs’ lawyers has clogged our civil courts, drastically changed the practice of medicine, and costs American companies and consumers more than $150 billion a year. Who profits? On average, more than fifty cents of every dollar paid out in tort cases goes to lawyers’ fees, not to an injured party. This amounts to a tax on consumers to fatten the wallets of trial lawyers.

Let’s be blunt about the effects of all that cash: Our civil justice reforms have been blocked in the Capitol and vetoed in the Oval Office. It’s why federal agencies have colluded with the trial lawyer lobby in sweetheart litigation, to advance through the courts what they could not accomplish through the political process. We fully support the role of the courts in vindicating the rights of individuals and organizations, but we want to require higher standards for trial lawyers within federal jurisdiction, much as Governor Bush has already done in Texas — and as we encourage other States to do within their own legal codes. To achieve that goal, we will strengthen the federal rules of civil procedure to increase penalties for frivolous suits and impose a "Three Strikes, You’re Out" rule on attorneys who repeatedly file such suits. We will limit "fishing expeditions" by amending federal discovery rules, curb the use of junk science in testimony, and end the abusive use of the RICO statute. We encourage all states to consider placing caps on non-economic and punitive damages in civil cases. We also support such caps in federal causes of action. We also encourage states to examine the effects on the democratic process of advancing policies through litigation that could not be accomplished through the political process.

I’m curious how Harriet Miers conforms to these qualifications.

I’m aware of the “stealth” theory, and acknowledge that in a couple years I may well view her as being to the right of Thomas and Scalia.

Were I a Senator (no, I didn’t say were I a Republican Senator), I’d vote for her. It’s GWB’s pick, and barring disqualifying characteristics, the vote should be a yes

I’m curious how she fits the qualifications though. Not mine, the Republican Party’s.

Perhaps someone could explain it to me. With specifics. On issues like the Pledge of Allegiance, partial birth abortion, respect for the Constitution, restore[ing] the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law, [the] Ten Commandments, DOMA, unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion in the public square, or [the] presumption of judicial supremacy, tort reform, class action lawsuits, the use of RICO, frivolous lawsuits.

Not my qualifications, the Platform’s. I’d have some questions about the 2nd amendment and immigration to add as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.