Justice Kennedy: Lawyers Must Defend Judiciary From Attacks

AP ^ | 6/24/05 | Mike Schneider

[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.

[solitas]

"Judicial independence is so that a judge can do what he has to do or what she must do," Kennedy said.

So, then, the dumbf_ck is saying that he HAD to piss all over the fifth ammendment?

[solitas]

SCOTUS still has power, but, in gutting the Constitution, it has surrendered all moral authority.?

...just like any other despot(s).

[pepperdog]

Mr or Ms or Mrs or Miss Brilliant,

Will you run for President please?

[solitas]

She must have taken her medicine before studying the case.

OR, she's developed an awareness of her own mortality.

[Borges]

The other 2 branches should be able to disagree with and override those opinions at will because they are ELECTED.

We're just talking in circles. If you want to give judicial powers to the other two branches and concentrate power like that fine. I disagree. Since there's no such thing as an 'unbiased' interreptation the solution is to appoint judges who share our views (an opportunity that's coming shortly) not throw out the system we've had for centuries.

[solitas]

He'll give it a good, stern, administrative "Hrmph" after someone 'splains it to him.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

"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,"

"...over the course of time, in a professional and elegant way, to explain to the public the meaning of the rule of the law,"

Just damn.

Michael Frazier

[floriduh voter]

Yeah, they want to make sure that Judges like Greer can keep on killing and euthanasia is against the law in Florida. JUDICIAL HOMICIDE OCCURS after the ward's property is stolen from them $ for the death lawyers.

Visit http://www.judgegreer.com.

And, this. A shark attack in the Gulf. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050625/D8AUS6RO1.html

[GOPJ]

Now that's cold:

When is Justice Kennedy's feeding tube going to be disconnected. He is obviously brain dead. Then we can take his family's property and put up a condo or maybe a WalMart on it.

[sbelew]

It's late, and I haven't read the entire thread.

Did anyone else notice he seems to have specifically made a point to NOT mention the ED ruling...which is obviously what this little statement is really all about?

[Sal]

Agreed. The commie threat has not been beaten, just driven underground for a while, although it is showing itself more and more...

[ZULU]

So are the five imbicles on the court who came up with this decision.

[ZULU]

Irhink a lot of these people are connected with the legal systsm, i.e. attorneys.

[Itzlzha]

Well. The liberal, Kennedy, appears to think that fellow scumbag lawyers should "defend" the Supreme Court from public opinion, the will of the people, the fact that this is a representative democracy.

Wrong!

We are a Representative REPUBLIC!

Democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner...

Or in this case; A group of Local Gub'Mint a-holes in BED with some developers deciding on who's HOUSE/Property they want!

Watch out...your money in your bank account could be better "Used for the Public Good", rather than just sitting there...that may be the NEXT confiscation!

[NeoCaveman]

I can't imagine it's a right that contemporary interpreatations of the Constitution wouldn't include into the basket of rights previously mentioned.

Of course not. We have a "living constitution", the founder's constitution would leave such things up to the states aka the political process.

[Borges]

Coming from a background of literary studies, I can tell you...all texts are living. :) In any case, we have all sorts of things today that he FF would never have imagined..hence the genius of the broad language of the Constitution that keeps us from having to change it hardly at all but merely apply its principles.