Posted on 06/24/2005 1:13:50 PM PDT by Crackingham
Lawyers should speak up and explain the judicial process when judges come under attack, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told members of the Florida Bar on Friday.
"When judges are attacked unfairly, it's proper for the bar over the course of time, in a professional and elegant way, to explain to the public the meaning of the rule of the law," Kennedy told several hundred lawyers attending the Florida Bar's annual meeting.
In the past year, the judiciary has come under attack from U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who openly criticized the federal courts when they refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Delay pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated. Other conservative critics have accused the courts of housing "activist judges," and in Chicago, the husband and mother of a federal judge were found murdered in her home. There's nothing wrong with criticizing cases, Kennedy said.
"We want a debate on what the law does and what it means," he added. "Judges aren't immune from criticism and neither are their decisions."
What is worrisome is when the criticism isn't just focused on a decision but at the judiciary, and increasingly, individual judges, he said. Lawyers can act as an intermediary between the decisions made by judges and the larger society by explaining, he added.
"When the judiciary is under attack, the bar disengaged, the public indifferent and critics scornful, then this idea of judicial independence might be under a real threat," Kennedy said.
Some critics believe that the idea of judicial independence gives judges the ability to rule however they want to, but the opposite is true, Kennedy said.
"Judicial independence is so that a judge can do what he has to do or what she must do," Kennedy said.
and with this new whining, bleating, liberal comment get ready for a new ruling, "it is illegal to criticize a supreme court justice and any ruling that they make.."
If you REALLY want to be angry, remember that that SHOULD have been BORK's seat, if memory serves.
Dan
Let me check......[sound of crickets].....Nope.
I though you called in lawyers when you needed protection from lawyers (or the government, which is one and the same)!
Using a lawyer for protection is somewhat like asking friendly wolves to protect you from unfriendly wolves!
DING DING DING!...We have a winner!
'38.. is that when they made the decision regarding the the constitutionality of GCA '34?
US v miller i believe.
We'll do. Thanks. :o)
They are scared - they know they just kicked a great big hornet's nest with the Kelo vs. New London decision, after tapping at it and riling it up for many, many years. They've already got "legal experts" all over the media poo-pooing the reaction of us peons, declaring in the most condescending tones that the "big bad government isn't coming to take your house." The media spin machine is in hyperdrive on this one, and this is simply a pre-emptive strike, telling us fools to just shut up and meekly accept the rulings of your black-robed gods.
I don't think it's going to work this time. When you start talking about taking away a person's home, you're going to get noticed quickly. And there are a couple of other major decisions coming next week, one of which will probably mean that, if this court continues with it's string of recent rulings, I just committed a felony a few minutes ago when I ripped a couple of CDs to my computer so I could load the songs on my iPod. The other decision will most likely ban any kind of display of the Ten Commandments, be it on public or private land. If Kennedy thinks it's hot now, he should wait a few days to see what hot really means.
Doesn't Congress have the right to pass a law removing the review of a case from the Supreme Court?
How do you explain the unexplainable Mr. Kennedy? Come on, tell us what you were smoking when you came out and take away property rights.
Bar, Schmar! Who cares any more what this guy thinks?
It's pretty obvious over half of the Supreme Court doesn't have the smarts to read the Constitution and he is in that half.
No wonder jerks like this ask for lawyers to defend them from the public. Their decisions are simply awful! Pretty soon, they might need more than some fancy-pants members of the bar to defend them. I were them, I would be fearful of the public, too.
Because the gang of 5 are crapping in their red diapers. That's why.
The four golden stripes on Rehnquist's robe are a step in that direction.
I don't think Kennedy will be too pleased if conservative lawyers speak out to the people in "a professional and elegant way" saying that activist judges are destroying the United States.
"Judicial independence is so that a judge can do what he has to do or what she must do," Kennedy said.
And that also means reading the job description, 'Justice' Kemmedy. Nowhere is there a justification for using the Commerce Clause to regulate everything.
Nor is there a justification for legislating from the bench.
Not even America's lawyers can help the Assi-nine after their last debacle.
Can WE do that? ..I guess they can, Who would have thought, these "Black Robes" would have gone this far over 40 years..creeping Socialism
Newt had said, "It takes only 1 generation (20+ years) to destroy the Republic." ..and I guess, we're seeing it now, by the "Black Robes".
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.