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.
Justice Kennedy: act responsibly you wont get verbally attacked.
This is a strange guy. He was nominated in 1987 and until 2003 was quite a good justice. What in the world happened since 2003?????
Unfortunately we are saddled with a domestically weak President who seems completely unwilling to use his political capital to strengthen the office of the Presidency. Bush should be challenging and even rejecting SCOTUS rulings he considers unlawful. We have 3 co-equal branches, but the Bush Family is so damned NICE that all they want to do is play by the rules. As a result the Congress and Courts are asserint more power than at any time since the Watergate Era.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I can understand that!
Well if Congress is abusing their power...the traditional check of that power is the Courts. Which branch is the Executive supposed to check anyway? It seems enfocring the law just makes them a handmaiden of the other two. Though I understand the Founding Fathers wanted the E Branch to be the weakest so as not to have anything resembling a monarchy.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Dementia?
"I'm a lawyer, and my inclination is to pile on."
I'm also a lawyer and my inclination is respond in the same manner that the Court responds to me whenever I inquire into a Motion that has been pending for several months: "We are very busy here. We'll get around to it when we have a chance."
And once they interpret the law what force does that interpretation have without Judicial Review? Or should they just be advisers that the other branches can listen to and heed at their pleasure?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I defend a judge making a tough decision. It's the arrogantly stupid ones that are getting them in trouble. It's not as though people can't read the law or the Constitution for themselves. And it's not as though people don't know right from wrong.
Yep.
When was the last time a lawyer or judge was sued for malpractice and lost the case?? First, off judges can't be touched, this is the so-called judicial independence crap which they think gives them the right to subvert the U.S. constitution and U.S. tenable legal precedence. Notice I had to say, U.S., since Kennedy and Ginsburg both think we in the U.S. should be subjugated to foreign laws. This bastard had damn well better follow the U.S. constitution and U.S. legal precedence or resign or be forced out by whatever method required to stop what is nothing more than judicial tyranny.
Damn, I attended those meetings for part of the week, but took the day off today.
I think we do have a role in explaining legal concepts and the system, but we are not obligated in any way to march in lockstep with the judiciary if we are convinced they are WRONG!
Kennedy used to be a law professor at McGeorge, in my hometown of Sacramento. What an embarrassment.
Isn't he about 84? I think we need to change the age limit and not let these old people be judges. They're out of touch with reality.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Thank you for your opinion and for speaking up.
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.