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.
As if Griswald or Miranda were something other than simply the personal policy prefernces of the SCOTUS.
LOL Good one!
(Give me a hint, what does Beuhler mean?)
No kidding. I suspect he will not be very kind to the five.
You think State goverment should be able to outlaw contraception?
Just get rid of the idiots and reverse their opinions. We don't need to change the Constitution, except insofar as it is necessary to do so in order to get rid of them and reverse their opinions.
Kennedy once voted in the minority to overturn Roe v. Wade, then the next time the issue came up he would have been in the majority if he voted the same way so he voted in the 5-4 majority to preserve abortion. One of the cases was Webster.
"Half the Supreme Court is full of idiots . Defend that."
You are correct. Apparently at least five of them cannot read and understand english.
I suppose that's the gist of his idea. The totalitarian, elitist implications are quite clear.
God does not have unjust laws.
Oh yeah, maybe THAT'S what has his panties in a wad.
I'm willing to deal with that. Once we get a conservative court, they can rewrite the slate.
I thought a bill of attainder was a law passed which made an action committed prior to the enactment of the law a crime.
I do not see the Griswold "privacy" penumbra in the Constitution. If you want to add one do it the old fashioned way - A Constitutional Ammendment, otherwise leave it to the states.
Correction: Representative Republic. HUGE difference.
That's an Ex Post Facto law. BOA is trial by legislature.
That's another way of saying that just because you don't see something going on, that doesn't mean nothing is going on.
Have you seen Ferris Beuhler's Day Off? Ben Stein plays a teacher in the movie, and he's calling roll:
"Beuhler? Beuhler?"
"Has anyone seen Ferris Beuhler? Anyone? Anyone?"
He also does the "Anyone? Anyone?" bit when he's asking a question in the class lecture.
What audacity - the libs on the court dont believe in the rule of law. If Bush Sr. and RINOs in the senate had some balls and cared about the rule of law we wouldnt be having this discussion. Instead they picked and allowed SCOTUSs like Kennedy and Ginsberg. The natives are getting restless I hope SCOTUS and the rest of govt. better start paying attention.
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.