Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Kennedy: Lawyers Must Defend Judiciary From Attacks
AP ^ | 6/24/05 | Mike Schneider

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anthonykennedy; fascist; kennedy; oligarchy; pos; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-307 next last
To: LibFreeOrDie
Isn't Justice Kennedy the one who looks to "international law" and Europe to determine how he should decide opinions on U.S. law?

I think that was Sandra ....O

41 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Sounds like someone if feeling the heat.
Translation:"I can tell you what to do, but don't you dare get in my face."
42 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:22 PM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

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


43 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:29 PM PDT by Lexington Green (I am a good American, so I arrested my cancer-stricken mother for using medical pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith

Beuhler, Beuhler?

:)


44 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:51 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marty60

He does sound scared. And there will be more flack next week when they release the Ten Commandments case. It's going to get worse for the judges. I hope they all retire.


45 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:54 PM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

We need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a 2/3 rds majority of Congress to overrrule any Supreme Court decision relating the Consitutionality of a law.

Then it will be in Congress' hands to do something about this, and Congress won't want to act unless there is a huge uproar from the public.

Even now, as we communicate, there is barely a whimper. No demonstrations, no mass protests, just the sounds of bleating sheep.


46 posted on 06/24/2005 1:26:58 PM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

And lawyers should attack judges when they fail in their roles as adjudicators and seize power that goes beyond judging to legislating and inflicting their personal biases, fears and hatreds upon the rest of us. I have heard this "we should get a free pass" argument from abominably stupid county probate judges all the way up to both purportedly conservative and clearly liberal members of the SCOTUS.


47 posted on 06/24/2005 1:27:21 PM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXBSAFH

No, moronic rulings, perhaps, but they KNOW what they're doing.


48 posted on 06/24/2005 1:27:46 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Brilliant

McClintock proposed a new amendment to reestablish our private property rights that this scumbag has stolen from us.

What kept me up until 6:30 this morning was the thought:

How can this new amendment be worded any more clearly than the 5th amendment was?


50 posted on 06/24/2005 1:28:51 PM PDT by stands2reason (GINOBILI and HORRY are my MVPS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
That sounds suspiciously like a bill of attainder.
51 posted on 06/24/2005 1:29:01 PM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
We need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a 2/3 rds majority of Congress to overrrule any Supreme Court decision relating the Consitutionality of a law.

That gives Congress the power to change the Constitution without the consent of the states. they can legliate away all elections and overrule any judicial decision that said otherwise.
52 posted on 06/24/2005 1:29:03 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"When judges are attacked..it's proper for the bar...to explain to the public the meaning of the rule of the law," Kennedy told several hundred lawyers

In other words, Kennedy expects the citizens to drink the Hemlock, just as Socrates. The rule of law has no rule over me when it's in error. I have no duty to the State or God to obey an unjust law.

53 posted on 06/24/2005 1:29:09 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Kennedy's an ass.

What he should really be doing is telling the general public what they must do to get rid of bad judges. In fact, that should be the only topic any of these drudges on the USSC should be allowed to talk about in public.

54 posted on 06/24/2005 1:29:23 PM PDT by muawiyah (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

That's like asking the dealers to defend the merits of crack.


55 posted on 06/24/2005 1:29:50 PM PDT by Juan Medén
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Translation = "I want my lawyer!!"

What a buffoon!


56 posted on 06/24/2005 1:30:15 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
What an @sshole. This is the equivalent of a building that falls down due to poor design, and then having the engineer who designed it call on other members of his profession to defend his right to design buildings as he sees fit.

Hey, Mr. Kennedy -- it doesn't take a professional engineer to look at a crumbled pile of steel and concrete and realize that the damn building wasn't properly designed, and it sure as hell doesn't take a lawyer to look at the crap emanating from your feeble mind to realize that you have no f#&%ing business serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.

57 posted on 06/24/2005 1:30:20 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"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.

At this point, the judiciary should be under relentless attack and noone should be defending them. Kennedy bears no small share of the blame for the sad state of the judiciary.

58 posted on 06/24/2005 1:30:25 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
BTW, I'd been joking that the next thing we'd see would be Kennedy and that Ginsburg woman looking to Idi Amin's or Robert Mugabe's laws, and darned if they didn't!

It's pitiful that our Executive is so weak that he hasn't tossed these people in a dungeon somewhere by now.

59 posted on 06/24/2005 1:30:55 PM PDT by muawiyah (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
He endorses the new global government with it's laws, and believes that the Constitution is irrelevant.
60 posted on 06/24/2005 1:31:05 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (I don*t know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future. His name is Jesus Christ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-307 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson