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: Lawyers Must Defend Judiciary From Attacks
why????????????
Stevens is 85. Oliver Wendell Holmes served until he was like 92 or so. He was asked to step down by his fellow Justices.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.
"Their maxim is boni judices est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
"The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Leni
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this country fight a revolution (1775-1783) to escape the tyranny of the British empire and their "rule of law?" Now Kennedy wishes to subjugate U.S. citizens to Global Government law without firing a shot--it ain't gonna happen again.
Justice Kennedy must be in the grip of an extreme delusion if he thinks that anything that lawyers might say can deflect public criticism of the court. If there is any group that has less claim to public praise that lawyers, I have yet to hear of it.
Bush's only real power over the judiciary is in appointments of fair-minded judges. The left/liberals know this and these appointments are crucial. Getting new supremes in office is going to be an issue the left/liberals and their allies will be willing to go to war over. This is the only way the left can continue to dominate the freedom loving populace; through the court system.
Absolutely. If yesterday's case demonstrated brilliant legal minds in action, I'd prefer to start all over.
Remember the Justice they would wheel into court. With his NURSE no less.. His Foley bag hanging for all to see. It can get worse.
There is only one question any candidate or current office holder should answer. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON A BILL TO REVERSE THE STEALING OF AMERICANS PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PAYOFFS TO COMMUNITY POLITICAL HACKS.
It was worse. I think that was William O. Douglas.
Thanks couldn't remember his name. Just the pictures of him and his foley bag hanging down. no wonder we are a mess judicially.
I don't see how you can blame Bush. First, he's had no opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court nominee. Second, he's simply following the historical precedent which deliniates the limit of his power. The problem is the Court.
Of course, that is not to say that there might be a point where defying the Courts is a rational option. But we aren't anywhere near that yet.
The Founders created 3 competing branches of government on the theory that if one became too powerful, the others would reign it in. What we need is for Congress and the White House to cooperate in reigning in the Supreme Court. When that happens things will change. The problem is that we've only in the last few years gotten a President who is sympathetic to the idea of reigning in the courts, and the Congress is still not there. It's really the responsibility of the people to fix that problem.
The "rule of law" is dead to me and has been for some time. This term of the supremes has only made it worse. I have no faith in "the rule of law" anymore and no respect for lawyers, judges, or anyone involved.
This could've been titled "The Brotherhood of the Robe Orders the Closing of the Ranks".
I'd have to comb it like you did for the parts I'd want to quote.
But suffice it to say, if a People's convention were to go back and repair the damage done by the Supreme Court, they'd have to start there.
I'm a lawyer and Kennedy can go to hell. If he believes in the rule of law, why doesn't he follow it?
With the decisions the SCOTUS has made lately, Kennedy and the other libs on the high court should consider themselves lucky that they haven't been physically run out of town. And having to rely on the lawyers to spruce up one's image is truly laughable!
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.