Posted on 08/09/2005 1:38:59 PM PDT by Crackingham
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday that rulings on difficult subjects like gay rights and the death penalty have left courts vulnerable to political attacks that are threatening judicial independence. Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker.
"If you say seven or eight or nine members of the Supreme Court feel there's a problem ... you're right," he told the American Bar Association. "It's this edge on a lot of issues."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was speaking with Breyer, said: "The politics of judges is getting to be red hot." He said Supreme Court rulings on the Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments have captured the public's interest and polarized Democrats and Republicans.
"There's nothing that's not on the table," former Solicitor General Theodore Olson said of the court's work, which this fall includes issues like abortion, capital punishment and assisted suicide.
Breyer said the nine-member court is focused on constitutional limits on major fights of the day. "We're sort of at the outer bounds. And we can't control politics of it, and I don't think you want us to try to control politics of it," he said.
Congressional leaders including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, have criticized justices in recent months. DeLay was particularly critical of the court's refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death and at a death penalty decision that cited international cases.
Breyer defended using overseas legal opinions as a guide only, adding, "It has hit a political nerve."
Breyer, Olson and Graham were discussing the future of courts on the final day of the ABA's annual meeting in Chicago. Also Tuesday, the group was debating whether to endorse federal protection for journalists who refuse to reveal their sources to prosecutors. Passage of such a measure would authorize the organization to lobby Congress, where "shield law" proposals are pending.
Judicial independence has been a major theme at the meeting of the ABA, a 400,000-member group. The group's policymaking board passed a resolution urging elected officials and others to support and defend judges. New group President Michael Greco of Boston said judges have faced physical threats, and threats of impeachment from Washington political leaders unhappy with court decisions.
"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect us," Greco said.
Is that a threat?
In ohio it is already a felony to criticize judges and prosecuters per this link Ohio Prosecutor Extorting First Amendment
While they have gotten worse, this didn't just start in the 80s or later. The Court raped the Interstate Commerce clause so they could kiss FDR's hind end, so as not to come under criticism from a public demanding that "something be done" about the Great Depression, regardless of whether the Federal Government had been delegated power to do that "something" or not. Earlier, they refused to enforce the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment, because they approved of the actions of state officials who were infringing on the freedoms of certain classes of citizens. (naturalized and second generation Germanics in a couple of famous cases). Then they used the "due process" clause of the same amendment to protect still other classes of citizens, but only in regard to those rights they, and not the Constitution, deemed "fundamental".
And if they do, we'll be justified in shooting the SOBs. Actually they've don't the next worse thing, they've approved of a law prohibiting effective criticism of politicians, at least in most cases, just when it counts the most, immediately before an election. Does anyone know off the top of their head if they invoked foreign laws and practices in that decision?
I would prefer the original meaning. Intent is very hard to determine sometimes, and the authors may not have revealed their real intent. The meaning of the words they used, at the time they used them, is what is really important, IMHO.
Yes. It hits me right in my "unacceptable" nerve.
I agree in part, but also disagree in part. They are supposed to enforce the Constitution, and in certain cases resolve disputes between parties. If enforcing the Constitution as written causes difficulties, usually for those who want more power for the government, then so be it. If the problem is that large and universal, the Constitution can be amended, but it must not be ignored for mere expediency. That's how we got the Federal government involved in every aspect of our lives. Most all of that flows from the FDR era court decisions which mangled the interstate commerce clause into a blank check for federal usurpation of powers not granted. That and the income tax to pay for it all.
It has become the liberal practice to prohibit free speech (campaign reform) all the while accusing conservatives of violating the free speech......of some. Hopefully, the more they proclaim this absurdity, the more the truth will be exposed. The news is no longer withing the control of the MSM.
Fortunately, they haven't tried to import one sort of foreign law--Sharia-just quite yet. But what's to stop them if foreign laws are cited as precedents or models?
That is truly outrageous!
CA....
I think it's better not to say "interpret" the Constitution. In most cases, all they have to do is "apply" the Constitution. But they often do just the opposite!
You Brits are smart not to get sucked into the Euroweenie Constitution (The Euroweenie appelation does not refer to the English!)
Have you ever read the blasted thing???? BWAAAHAAAHAAA! The preamble is two or more pages....
Those people are whacked.
If I haven't told you before, Ivan...Thank God for the Brits!
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.