Ted Olson Criticizes GOP Leaders For 'Heated Rhetoric' About Judges

Drudge ^ | 4/21/05 | Drudge

[joesbucks]

This citizen has lost ALL confidence in the Judiciary.

Even if I agreed with you 100%, and I don't, I would have to throw out your response. You've got a vested interest in this just as many have suggested that Ted too may have a vested interest in where he may be future appointed. You are not only an activist as a citizen, but an activist as a professional.

As I have stated in other posts, there I times when the Supremes and other courts are right on with regard to my values. And there are times when I scratch my head, even at conservative judges and their rulings. Sometimes it takes a while for me to see the purpose of their ruling. Other times I still keep scratching my head.

I've generally agree with Olson on most of what he does. On this one I stand by him.

[roses of sharon]

I appreciated their passion, it showed they were human beings, responding to parents who petitioned their gov reps for relief upon not getting that relief from their state. They gave them a chance to take care of their daughter.

US reps getting heated about a life and death issue is understandable and appropriate.

[AndrewC]

We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government, and

Yeah, I guess that is the reason the judiciary is calling for more security around the courts.

[LZ_Bayonet]

He saw an opportunity, and made a smart, low cost tactical move. Should help him a lot during any confirmation hearings, should he ever be in that position.

[AndrewC]

Some of the respect shown.

"By stopping the vote count in Florida, the United States Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not just judges of a court of law. We are professors at 137 American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges."

-Statement of 637 Law Professors lawprofs@the-rule-of-law.com

"[The Supreme Court majority in Bush v. Gore has] made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor."

-Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School

[TexasCajun]

Hey Teddy, where's your outrage about the DEM's Harry Reid comment on SCJ Clarence Thomas?

[EternalVigilance]

You throw out my opinion because I'm an activist?

Okey-dokey...

But activist or not, whether you agree with me or not, it doesn't change the fact that I have no confidence in the Judiciary.

They no longer pay any heed to the Constitution. The parts they want to ignore, they simply ignore. And their black-robed cohorts back them to the hilt.

The pernicious doctrine of judicial supremecy is going to be the death of this republic, if we don't put a stop to it; by reining in the judges, yes, but also by forcing the legislative and the executive branches to step up and fulfill their own duties.

Without proper constitutional checks and balances, it should surprise no one when judges with life time appointments begin to think they're God and can do whatever they please, usurping legislative and executive power at will.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and restraint from our judges.

And that is why they're a disgrace and outrageous, Ted.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

If only they would stare decesis in the ass and follow the Constitution. ;-)

[EternalVigilance]

Message to Ted Olson:

Judges are not above criticism and reproach.

Far from it.

And I'm disappointed in you that you think they should be.

[EternalVigilance]

Ted, I hope you're reading this.

[soxfan]

This column was written by an individual who appears to have just launched his SCOTUS confirmation campaign with a pre-emptive first strike: pragmatically appealing to all sides to lower their voices just a bit. Which is a very plausible confirmation strategy, IMO. And nobody has a greater IOU to cash in than Ted Olsen.

[EternalVigilance]

You're right.

Doesn't make it right...

[soxfan]

Just win, baby.

[EternalVigilance]

Just win, baby.

I guess that works for those who believe in and practice moral relativism, which is what has gotten us into this predicament in the first place with an out-of-control judiciary.

I expected better of Mr. Olson.

Huge disappointment.

[soxfan]

Well, the ultimate confirmation of Ted Olsen to the SCOTUS does work for me. And there is nothing morally relativistic about that whatsoever. In fact, it is precisely the stealth confirmation approach taken by Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986 when he was unanimously confirmed by a vote of 98-0. There was nothing wrong with Scalia's non-confrontational approach. It made sense. A head-on, Bork-like frontal assault would be insane. You get your @ss kicked: and that's precisely how you end up with Kennedy and Souter types in the first place.

I say again: there is NOTHING morally relativistic about winning. Winners get to make things better; losers get to whine. What the heck is so darned morally superior about whining?

[billbears]

Well at least someone in the Republican party gets it. Don't think it will matter to the fringe followers and enablers, but he gets it.

[tarheelswamprat]

We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government...

Wrong, Ted.

He who gets to define the argument usually wins the argument. As long as we allow our public figures to get away with deliberately and dishonestly stating that we are supposed to have an "independent" judiciary we are just rolling Sisyphus' boulder up the hill. The Constitution in no way established an "independent" judiciary. It established three "co-equal" branches of government, each of which is supposed to be subject to "checks and balances" by the other two. Each branch has its specified duties and "powers", but no branch, even Judiciary is "independent" and free to flaunt the Constitution.

The proper terminology is an "impartial" judiciary, and we should immediately begin to aggressively confront and correct any public official who uses the term "independent" to refer to the judiciary in a way to impliy that it is "unaccountable" or "supreme" to the Constitution and to the other two co-equal branches of government.

After we've got the hang of confronting them on this, we might want to move ahead to publicly and vociferously chastizing any public official who starts blathering about "this great democracy of ours". We should then hand them one of Bill Engval's comedy DVD's on stupidity and a sign with the words "It's A Republic" and say "Here's your sign.".

[EternalVigilance]

Do you agree with his basic premise that judges are somehow above criticism and reproach?

Do you like the fact that there is an obvious double standard in terms of who is doing the criticizing and why? Is it fair that today's political elites think that such criticisms are fine as long as it isn't criticism from conservatives?

FReepers have done their usual yoeman's job on this thread of vividly illustrating this double standard.

This statement by Olson defies reason and logic. In today's judicial climate, that probably means he's equipped with the perfect 'judicial temperament'.

Grease the skids...

[EternalVigilance]

Great post.

I totally agree.