Judges must be protected, Rehnquist says [judicial activisim alert]

Houston Chronicle ^ | Jan. 1, 2005, 12:40AM | DAVID G. SAVAGE

[DirtyHarryY2K]

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in a statement to be released today that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from office.

The public, the media and politicians certainly are free to criticize judges, Rehnquist said, but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with.

"The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdication, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson (1821)

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[OldFriend]

Any mention of adhering to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and not the euroweenies idea of justice?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Ping

[stopem]

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, has threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers.

So thats what brought this on. UtOh

[Founding Father]

Jefferson also said that life tenure for federal judges was the biggest mistake the founders made.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe the failure of congress to curb judicial activisim by limiting fed court jurisdiction is the biggest mistake. I think life tenure does help judges be impartial---but the flip side is obviously that they answer to no one.

[Ed Current]

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, Jan. 23, 1804 Less than one year after Marbury v. Madison decision:

I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than [would] a removal of the Judge who has rendered them unknowing to his fault."-

We don't have the votes for impeachment/removal, but may have them for jurisdiction removal.

It is far easier to remove the issue from the judge than the judge from the issue.

The federal courts have become the law breaking branch of the federal government. Congress can remove appelate jurisdiction of the USSC and jurisdiction of lower federal courts We the People Act(HR 3893 IH) and leave this issue with the states.

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

• Justice Brennan said in 1982: "[O]bviously we Americans must accept that . . . upon judges, and particularly justices of the Supreme Court, rests a great share of the delicate responsibility of deciding what must be preserved and what must be changed, what we shall protect and what we shall abandon."- William Brennan, Address at Park School, Baltimore, Maryland (Nov. 21, 1982)
• Most members of the Court seem to be gnostics, firmly believing they have access to wisdom denied the rest of us" (i.e., those citizens who are not justices on the Supreme Court). The question arises as Justice Antonin Scalia has said: "What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court? . . . Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." - Robert Bork, Our Judicial Oligarchy , First Things , Nov. 1996, at 21.
• The People's Constitution is no longer the "supreme law of the land" binding upon the judges, as well as the people. - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
• Even Justice William O. Douglas admitted late in his career that "due process, to use the vernacular, is the wildcard that can be put to such use as the judges choose." William O. Douglas, quoted in W. Forrester, Are We Ready for Truth in Judging? 63 A.B.A. J. 1212 (1977)

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.

[vaudine]

I agree with Jefferson. Rehnquist's little spiel is totally pro-
court/judge, and is understandable, even his estimate of the bad
political influene toward the impeachment of justices could do.
However, he does not address the other side of the coin which is
addressed by Jefferson--the total irresponsibility and cultural
oppression of justices with a political agenda and untouchable
power.

Only look at the results of the machinations of a lightweight
thinker like Harry Blackmun.

vaudine

[GeekDejure]

This has now gone beyond the point of being "scary" !!!

[Ed Current]

Any mention of adhering to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and not the euroweenies idea of justice?

BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bad company]

Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction

But they don't, and that's what has sparked this public reaction.

[Ed Current]

BUMP TO YOUR QUOTE!!!!!!!

[mountainlyons]

It is treason for someone to swear to uphold the Constitution then turn your back on the Constitution and use your own law. What are we to think of someone swearing in the President of the United States and asking the President to uphold the Constitution when you are unwilling to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America yourself!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Anyone with an elementary education on American history knows that children held prayer in school until Madylinn Ohare the ACLU and the USSC deemed prayer "unconstitutional"

[nothingnew]

Bump DHY2K!

I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Born to Conserve]

The judges are impeachable for a reason.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"Judges are expected to administer the law fairly."

And Constitutionally as well, Your Honor.

That is all we are asking,and any Judge that is unwilling or unable to do that, should be impeached.

It is hardly mere public opinion, when any rational person can see that the Supreme Court has too often ruled on what certain activist Judges wished was in the Constitution, rather than what is actually written there in no uncertain terms.

Ror vs Wade for one, stands out like a neon sign.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Roe,Roe!!!!

[mainepatsfan]

The worst part is these judges know perfectly well what the Founding Fathers meant they just don't care!

[Brilliant]

They've abused their power. They need to be taught a lesson.