Justice Kennedy: Lawyers Must Defend Judiciary From Attacks

AP ^ | 6/24/05 | Mike Schneider

[Vision]

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

Here lies the epicenter of the problem

[Sal]

I've seen polls running as high as 96% of the public against this opinion. Yesterday they had posters from DU here on FR posting against the decision. When you have almost unanimity among the American people that you have made a bad decision...

My optimistic view in search of a silver lining:
President Bush ran on and touts the "Ownership Society" and points out often that minority ownership has increased even more rapidly than the average. Now the gang of 5 has rendered ownership meaningless.

Also, as you pointed out above, even the less sharp knives in the drawer seem to understand that this travesty will effect THEM badly.

If Tom Delay and others can marshal public opinion based on THIS evil ruling, it just might find traction. Even the commies understand that any puny little local level bureaucrat can sell them out for a crappy little bribe from what they, the commies, already regard as evil "business interests".

With the right ads, this can be sold and impeachments can happen. But it will take fast action (while people are still hot about this decision), good ads, and brave people. I know Delay is brave and maybe he can find more brave people to help when sentiment is 96% with them...

[Sal]

The pessimistic view:
Remember how carefully laid out was the PR/media plan for defeating Bush. First books came out by the liars Richard Clark, Mr. Valerie Plame and a few others. All were designed to defame and undermine W. as a successful (and honest) CIC. It was to soften the affection for a man who was likable and liked by most of the ordinary people and to set up the points on which he could be attacked. (Incompetent, lax on security, liar, deceiver, misleader...)

The media beat the ANG drum fairly continually, but the BS Kitty Kelly book was ready for release right about the time that Danny boy was going to come out with "documented proof" that W got favored treatment and didn't meet his responsibilities in the ANG. The climax so to speak. Totally coordinated.

I know I'm forgetting other important bits and I think this goes back even further to Senator Rockefeller's memo--I call it the Treason Memo--wherein they plan to comb all the classified info they had access to in order to glean bits they could use against W.

My whole point here is to show that these things are planned way ahead, choreographed for maximum impact and building effect. It is done with purpose aforethought. We know the purpose of the DNC/MSM propaganda/campaign--to defeat W.

I'm saying we need to see this court crap in the same way. I don't know how far back it started but at least as far back as Gavin Newsome in SF declaring same sex marriage as legal when he had no legal right to make that determination, preceded a short while by the MA Supreme Court basically telling the legislature they had to make same sex marriage legal because they, the gods on MA SC, had already decided that it was but they wanted a legislation, certainly the findings that referred to the goodness of having our legal thinking accommodating foreign countries' attitudes and rules...

I'm a lot shakier on the overturning of sodomy laws, but I vaguely remember that some court (was it USSC based on the attitudes of other countries...?) declared them unconstitutional without a specific case to base it on. I could be very wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that it involved a major court making a ruling it had no right to make in that specific situation.

I'm NOT trying to debate same sex marriage or sodomy laws here. The point here is illegal judicial activism--in these cases in the face of public opinion to the contrary.

I believe this is a coordinated campaign as well and, if so, what is the purpose? It could be the obvious--making decisions that little by little destroy the Constitution and reinforce the power of the black robed tyrants until they have effectively brought off a bloodless coup d' etat.

OTOH I doubt it's going to remain bloodless based on what I read in thread after thread from back during the election and now with these filthy rulings.

It's hard not to wonder if somebody important behind the scenes somewhere has decided that it's a fine idea to push us until we rebel and have Civil War II. Certainly the provocations have been intense for over 5 years. They may not be unprecedented. After all we did have CWI, but I don't ever remember so much inciting to violent reaction even when the political issues were volatile and divisive in my life.

We've got the guns. How stupid they would be to start CWII. Unless they have foreign entanglements they could count on.

Thanks to Buckhead and friends the Fifth Column's plans for the election were thwarted and the Republic, though damaged, remains. I think we better figure out the master plan on this one and stop it too and pretty damn quick!

[marty60]

I agree. Maybe if this became common practice for the UNconstitutional ruling Judges....THEY WOULD GET THE MESSAGE.

Californian's..back when they had cahones......got rid of that commie Rose Bird.

[Justa]

"We need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a 2/3rds majority of COngress to overrule their idiotic decisions."

Is 2/3rds of Congress honest, principled, loyal to the Constitution and dedicated to the welfare of the people? I trust them less than the Supreme Court.

The problem with the Supreme Court is it's the Supreme Court. Once they rule specifically on something that's the final word. Their rulings can only be overturned by the Supreme Court. State or federal laws won't work at protecting property rights from local officials or developers now. Laws which are on the books are only good until a corrupt local board and developer challenge any limitation by going ahead and doing what the Supreme Court said they could do in Kelo vs. New London.

Corrupt local boards will just go ahead and take property under the 'public good' presumption. If they're taken to court the case just has to be appealed to the federal. Once in federal court any state or federal law limiting a government-sponsored property seizure will be stuck down via Kelo vs. New London. Two dissenters in that case even specified that Emminent Domain would be used for corporate and politically-connected enrichment at others' expense. I.e., the court has already signed-off to eggregious corruption associated with the ruling.

[Borges]

They don't have any powers of enforcement. The Executive branch enforces their interpretation of the law based on the Founding Fathers conception of division of powers. I understand that we elect the other two branches but without recourse to judicial review those other two can legislate and/or act unconstitutionally based on political expediency and, in a worse case scenario, abolish the means for removing them from office.

The Constitution is essentially a document that describes the sorts of laws that the government cannot pass. Leaving that same law making body in charge of it is like leaving wolves in charge of the hen house. The Judicial Branch is the proper guardian of the Constitution...making sure the other branches don't breach their power. Ideally of course.

The upside is that a judicial decision can only go one way or the other. Legislatures can pass anything. That's why its important that they be kept in check. Impeaching Judges for decisions would be a can of worms. I can't imagine Congress going anywhere near it. Not to mention the fact that they don't have nearly enough votes.

[elbucko]

God does not have unjust laws.

Of course he doesn't. That's not what I wrote or implied. You read something that was not there.

[Borges]

I guess you have much more faith in Congress then I do. If you're just going have them make any law they want and depend on voters to decide what laws are good or not then why have a Federal Constitution at all? We could just discard it and have a parlimentary democracy like Great Britain. It has to have some legal weight. It's not just a guide for lawmakers. It's the Law of the Land that the Judicial Branch makes sure the other two branches follow. There is never just one interpretation of a text especially a text that was written centuries ago. Obviously a judicial decision is always going to provoke enmity amongst various people, some, like this one, more then others. I'd just rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[ZULU]

"Is 2/3rds of Congress honest, principled, loyal to the Constitution and dedicated to the welfare of the people?"

No. But they are elected and in some degree responsible for their actions. If we wanted nine Kings, the Founding Fathers would have created them.

Face it. The system isn't working. The Supreme Court was supposed to look at the Constitution and look at a proposed law and determine if that law was in conflict with the Constitution.

This collection of clowns does nothing of the sort. They use the Constitution as a general guideline and then make up everything else as they go along. And this pattern isn't new - but its escalalting.

To answer your question - I don't trust anyopne in power. But I trust someone who is answerable to no one and appointed for life least - especialy when they have the kind of power-grabbing track record the intemperate Supreme Court does.


"The problem with the Supreme Court is it's the Supreme Court. Once they rule specifically on something that's the final word."

The problem with that premise is we then no longer have three co-equal branches of government. We have two subordinate branches of government and one superior branch which is not what the founding fathers intended.

And this is all fine and good with many of our Congressmen. It takes them off the hook to have a judicially active court system. They can evade making hard decisions on major issues of policy and leave it to the untouchables on the SCOTUS. In that manner they secure their sinecures to what was never intended to be a permanent job by aggrevating no one.

Suppose all nine justices becamne senile. Then what? Can they be removed? No. They can't be touched for making assinine decisions like this recent one, only for commiting a crime and unfortunately being stupid or demented isn't a crime.

[NeoCaveman]

I've always felt the right to privacy was inherent in the life,liberty and property clause not to mention unreasoable search and seizure. It seems too obvious to have to include so basic is it to English Common Law.

In a sense privacy has been included but to imagine that sexual privacy, so to speak, was included does not historically hold up as all or at least most (probably all) of the founding fathers were from states that had legal prohibitions on adultery and sodomy. Now I'm not saying such laws were a good thing but they give you an idea of what the founding fathers meant about the document they authored.

[Calpernia]

Human Rights First (WTC Memorial) has been working directly with the ACLU with lawsuits (ex: prison abuse and Rumsfeld).

Calls to defend the Judicial branch must be a type of fillibuster to keep the Bush Admin. busy.

[Calpernia]

FYI

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told members of the Florida Bar

[Auntie Dem]

Rule 2. What is a judge?

An attorney in a robe.

I thought it was:

A judge was a lawyer who wasn't very good at it.

[Borges]

Actually adultery is still illegal in some states. I believe in FL it is a misdemeanor. But the idea of outlawing contraception...the goverment budding into the marriage bed, is so fundamentally repugnant that I can't imagine it's a right that contemporary interpreatations of the Constitution wouldn't include into the basket of rights previously mentioned.

[floriduh voter]

What, more swat teams? More Judge Greer goon squads making home visits?

[facedown]

All part of the plan.

[TheForceOfOne]

U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has the balls to speak the truth just like Rove and that's why I like them. Know one should be unaccountable for their actions, not even the SCOTUS.

[EDINVA]

"Because judges can be unfairly attacked. The problem is then that a judge is ethically prohibited in many ways from contemporaneously defending himself...."

ON THE OTHER HAND ... judges and justices make decisions that have long term effects on peoples lives ... when they make a bad decision, the aggrieved party has no choice but to appeal at enormous cost not only in money, but time, resources, energy .. years as often as not. SOme cannot afford the appeal. In the case of SCOTUS, there is no recourse, such as in this week's decision affecting homeowners in New London .. what recourse do those people have because 5 justices decided the economic value to the town would be enhanced by TAKING their homes? They are not gods; they are not infallable. Their improper decisions destroy lives. I think those justices SHOULD be condemned, and condemned LOUDLY.