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.
legislature ruling on trial results is how.
Impeach. Remove. Repeat as needed. If the faux-representatives in congress refuse to do so, vote them out. If the elections are rigged, remove by other means (which we won't mention here).
The constitution has remedies and methods for getting rid of corrupt judges like Kennedy. He should be impeached on charges of treason (betraying his oath of office) and removed. Ditto for Ginsburg, Breyer, Stephens, Souter, and O'Connor. These six amoral, evil individuals are far a greater threat to the continued existence of this nation than Osama bin Laden could ever dream of being.
Because judges can be unfairly attacked. The problem is then that a judge is ethically prohibited in many ways from contemporaneously defending himself. Strange but true.
So? The reputation they earn in the public eye is just about the only tool of accountability left for these black robed clowns.
Kennedy wants to the bar to "explain the rule of law to the people". Someone shoud explain it to Kennedy first. Hint, it means respecting the law as duely enacted and not making it up from the bench.
lol!
Anthony McLeod Kennedy was born on July 23, 1936 in Sacramento California. The second of his parent's three children, Kennedy grew up in the quiet Sacramento community that reflected the rural Central California region. Kennedy's father, Anthony J. Kennedy, worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for various businesses. He had a well-established law practice and a reputation for influence in the California legislature. His mother, Galdys McLeod, participated in many Sacramento civic activities. Kennedy attended a local Sacramento high school and Stanford University. He spent a year of his undergraduate studies at the London School of Economics and earned his A.B. and a Phi Beta Kappa key in 1958. After Stanford, Kennedy enrolled in Harvard Law School where he graduated cum laude. Kennedy returned to California after law school and worked as an associate for a law firm in San Francisco. When his father dies unexpectedly two years later in 1963, Kennedy returned to Sacramento to take over his father's practice. That same year, Kennedy wed Mary Davis, who he had known for many years. Together, they would have three children.
Kennedy spent many years working on the practice that his father had left him. Although he lacked experience as a lawyer, many of his father's important clients stayed with him out of respect for his father. Kennedy's clients soon discovered their new lawyer to have just as much, if not more, legal skills than his father. Kennedy had a talent for socializing and soon made many friends among the influential Californian politicians. He often entertained clients and guests at lavish parties and exclusive restaurants. Kennedy also donated large sums of money on behalf of himself and his clients to various political officials in the state. Through his work as a lobbyist, Kennedy befriended Ed Meese who represented the California District Attorney Association at that time. The two, sharing similarities in age and background, became close friends. Meese left to work for then-Governor Reagan in 1966 and Kennedy continued his work as an attorney and lobbyist. The two men did not lose touch with each other, however, and Kennedy continued to help Meese and Reagan in small capacities. Kennedy also taught constitutional law for a brief period during this time at the McGeorge School of Law of the University of the Pacific. In 1973, Meese recruited Kennedy to help Reagan draft a plan to cut taxes and spending. Kennedy helped draft Proposition One, a ballot initiative to limit the state's spending. He campaigned throughout the state to push the passage of the proposal and his efforts won him Reagan's favor. Despite the initiative's failure, Reagan rewarded Kennedy for his work by recommending him to President Gerald Ford for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Kennedy joined the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1975 as the youngest federal judge of his day. Carter expanded and flooded the Ninth Circuit Court with liberal judges during his presidency and Kennedy soon became the head of the court's conservative minority. In the turbulent and often divided Ninth Circuit Court of that time, Kennedy often held majorities with few dissents. His narrow case-by-case approach and his refusal to resort to sweeping conclusions and rhetoric won him the support of many colleagues. Even his opponents admired Kennedy's well-crafted and thoughtful opinions. When Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987, Kennedy appeared on a short list of possibilities for Reagan's nomination. Reagan nominated Robert Bork first, but the conservative Bork met fierce opposition in the Senate and ultimately failed to win confirmation. Reagan then turned to Douglas Ginsburg, a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit. Ginsburg, however, withdrew himself from consideration after only nine days when allegations leaked concerning his past marijuana use. Reagan, on the advice of Meese, finally turned to Kennedy to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Kennedy's nomination, unlike Reagan's two previous picks, encountered little resistance. Most observers viewed him favorably and even liberals thought of him as pragmatic and fair-minded. The Senate unanimously confirmed Kennedy on February 3, 1988 and he took the oaths of office a few days later.
Kennedy's experience as a federal judge allowed him to make a quick and easy transition to the Supreme Court. Since then, Kennedy has voted consistently with his past record on many issues. He remains conservative on crime issues and still refuses to broaden the scope of his opinions. He has been effective in holding unlikely coalitions on the Court. Rehnquist often relies on Kennedy's ability to build bridges between the Court's conservatives and liberals. In this sense, Kennedy is an important pivot on which close decisions turn. Kennedy has recently become an important part of the Court's growing centrist bloc.
First he lies on one side, then he lies on the other side.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes a person or group of persons without due process. No legislative act has occurred here. This is an act of the judicial branch. The ability of the judicial branch to manufacture new law without a legislative act is a major defect in our current system of government. The consequences of a bill of attainder can be achieved without the explicit protections that constrain a legislative act.
Perhaps the right solution is an amendment that expressly forbids the judiciary from legislating from the bench. Any activity that requires a new law MUST come only from an act of the legislature. The job of the judiciary is to follow the law as written...not to interpret the law as they see fit.
The current 5th amendment crisis is a consequence of allowing judges to interpret law. In this case they have been allowed to grossly expand the scope of the phrase "public use" into a broader concept of "public benefit".
Public benefit is so broad that it can encompass anything that helps government activity. Converting your home into a homeless shelter avoids the need to build one. Selling your home to the highest bidder increases the property tax revenues. Handing your property over to a commercial developer could generate higher property tax and sales tax revenues. Government has been given a license to steal any and all private property that could be used for "public benefit".
I hope the fools that rendered this decision are nervous wrecks for the rest of their natural lives. They have committed an egregious act that has earned each of them enmity from every private property owner in America.
Simple, we start the Amendment with the following words, "The court, judges, magistrates, lawyers and court clerks are barred from ruling on this Amendment..."
They got their respect from upholding the Constitution. Now that they've been opposing and attacking it for 40 years they're merely seeing which side the people are on.
..What A (Your FRname inserted here :) Idea..Obligatory "suck up" comment here.
The Supremes should be held up to the disdain and repugnance they so richly merit.
Lets hope this latest episode of juridical hubris succeeds in awakening the American public from thier somnolence and
results in some significant pressure on our legislatures to do something about reigning in and calling to account these dangerous radicals in black are destroying our society.
Look at them. Look at Bader-Ginsberg and Stevens. Would you a buy a CAR from people like this???
Yet we permit them to contninue blissfully on with impugnity, dismantling America.
Now is the time to put their feet to the fire and hold them to account.
We need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a 2/3rds majority of COngress to overrule their idiotic decisions.
Outstanding FReeper comments bump!
I think that citizens should defend the constitution from being attacked unfairly. If it weren't, Justice Stevens wouldn't be complaining....
Then again, he wouldn't be a justice either...
Microsoft:
"Where Do you Want to Go Today?"Pfizer [insert name of favorite deep pocket and local council members here]:
"Where Will you be Sleeping Tonight?
As a justice you are signing your name to history. If criticism hurts too much find another line of work.
Impeachment isn't enough.
Anyone think Kennedy would like to make it illegal for "peons" to critisize the judiciary?
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.