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.
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.
Kennedy and his two buddies, Ginsburg and Breyer, are disgraces. They should be removed from the SC. I suppose its too much to ask of our Congress-whores to draw up articles of impeachment?
heh heh! I may have to check that one out, I haven't seen it.
"Representative republic" is a redunancy. Republicanism is, by definition, a representative form of government. It has been since the Roman Republic itself.
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.
Right, this is one of those oxymoronic puzzles, isn't it?
I get it, they are the same but they just SOUND different!
Time for all of us to get involved in jury selection for the various trials Brian Nichols is going to be put through. A little jury nullification would put these people on notice.
This pigs wants to have a say in everyone's life but doesn't want any criticism in return. amazing. Kennedy - like his namesake in the Senate - would be more at home in the old USSR instead of America.
A CLASSIC of the 1980's. You won't be disappointed.
Fine, if it makes you happy. We're still a Republic.
LOL - time to resign, Mr. Kennedy!
Congress is composed of several hundred members elected directly by the people.
The Supremes are nine judges with political connections elected by no one.
Judicial review of the constitutionality of any law is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it is a power assumed by the Court during, I believe, under a precedent setting decision called Marbury versus Madison.
No one is talking about giving Congress the power to change the Consitution. Right now, nine appointed officials make determinations as to the Constitutionality of a law. At times they come out with egregiously outrageos decisions that flay in the face of all logic, tradition, and even the very wording in the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
In those situations, a mechanism must be in place to correct their deviance.
Also, a Supreme Court Judge may only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Senility and stupidty do not enter the equation. Which is a good argument for time limits on Supreme Court Justices' terms.
If anything, the longer they remain down there, the more arrogant, egotistical and liberal they become. Kennedy is a perfect example.
To Justice Kennedy: Bite Me
A charge of treason may raise the level of this guys offense against the Constitution to a level of honor he doesn't deserve.
...How can this new amendment be worded any more clearly than the 5th amendment was? ...
And what good would it do if it were? The 5 commies in black robes would just declare it unconstituional, or twist the words to mean something other then what they are.
They have really been on a terror here lately. Their butts need to be impeached.
O.K.
But this isn't really a bill of attainder then. We are talking about a decision relating to the Constitutionality of a law.
And in cases of impeachment, the Senate sits as a jury and the House brings the Charges. Is an impeachment then, by definition, a bill of attainder?
I really wanted to post something, but all the good ones are already taken.
Standfast!!
/jasper
I'd forgotten that. Boy, talk about rubbing salt in a wound....
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.