Scalia On Judicial Independence

Stop The ACLU ^ | 24-Oct-06 | John Stephenson

[Jay777]

Washington Post

Scalia, during a panel Saturday on the judiciary sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, dismissed the idea of judicial independence as an absolute virtue. He noted that dozens of states, since the mid-1800s, have chosen to let citizens elect their judges.

"You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing," Scalia said. "It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing."

He added, "The more your courts become policymakers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent."

Absolutely! The more the courts step outside of their bounds of interpreting whether something is within the realms of the Constitution and into the realm of creating new laws and rights from thin air, the more dangerous they become. The framers specified the role of the judiciary clearly. If the courts don't restrain themselves in matters there really isn't anyone who can or will. Scalia is not arguing that the judicial branch should not be a check on the other branches. He is stating how dangerous it is not have a check on the judicial branch when they step out of their bounds and into the field of the legislative branch.

[Jay777]

Ping!

[EagleUSA]

The more the courts step outside of their bounds of interpreting whether something is within the realms of the Constitution and into the realm of creating new laws and rights from thin air, the more dangerous they become. The framers specified the role of the judiciary clearly.
------
The judiciary remains the main covert vehicle of the left. Clinton really cultivated it, with his massive installation of socialist activists. And we still have a SCOTUS that at least partially, is conducting heavy socialist/anti-Constitutional activism (5th amend. anyone?) from the bench. We still have a very serious judicial problem in this country -- where the "liberal judicial vigilantes" on the bench are changing our laws to suit their political agendas.

[NurdlyPeon]

Absolutely. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. The power that was given to the courts is that they are the last word on disputes. The restraint that goes with that power is that they are not suppose to initiate. If the courts want to start acting like politicians, then they need to be treated that way. Well, actually, if they want to start acting like politicians, then they need to be stopped. We have more than enough politicians already.

[RedStateRocker]

Of course, it's judicial activism' if *I* don't like it, and 'proper interpretation of the Constitution" if I do like it:-)

[fhlh]

Clinton Cultivated it????

If I remember correct, Pubbies have controlled congress since 94....

[Jay777]

If not stopped then elected.

[Jay777]

Not so...it is judicial activism if it is made up from prejudiced pre-conceived notions and new rights or laws are invented through the process. It is proper interpretation if they judge whether the Constitution covers it or not.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"Why should it be that it takes the people and their elected represenatives years and millions of votes to enact their constitutional preferences, but five (or even two) judges can impose their political prefences at their whim?"

Seems to me that all 3 branches of government were originally set up to have checks and balances on one another. Since the Supreme Court has been acting like a three-year old for many, many years, it appears as though the other branches are not doing their job. And why would this be the case, for isn't everyone in government there for the benefit of the people and the states? It clearly used to be this way, but not any more. All of the rugrats are there for their own sorry selves and to hell with the people and the states...

[Jay777]

I imagine if the process were not so cumbersome it wouldn't be so discouraging to initiate.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"I imagine if the process were not so cumbersome it wouldn't be so discouraging to initiate."

You are absolutely correct. And it was initially meant to be cumbersome for the 3 branches, so as to prevent them from gaining a stronghold on the people of the states. However, the lovelies in Washington D.C. have twisted and perverted their imagined power so much, that they have created involuntary servitude. Instead of the government serving the people, it is the people serving the government. And thus, the perverted game continues...

[loveliberty2]

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."