Court Justice Worried About Criticism

Yahoo! News ^ | August 9, 2005 | GINA HOLLAND

[mrobison]

CHICAGO - 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.

On another subject, Greco defended the ABA's role in checking the background of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and other federal judicial nominees. The committee has spent the past two weeks reviewing Roberts' work on an appeals court and interviewing people who have worked with him.

"The ABA does not, and we will not, protect the interests of any political party or faction, nor the interests of any ideological or interest group," said Greco, who previously oversaw the judge review committee.

Breyer told the group that the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor is a personal loss and loss for the nation.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yeah, an if Congress tries it, expect a goodly segment of SCOTUS to say this violates the all-malleable Equal Protection amendment.

[Auntie Dem]

"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect us," Greco said.

I think this is what he meant to say:

"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect tyrannize us," Greco said.

Normally, such a fear of criticism would mean the person is having a twinge of conscience, but in this case--highly unlikely.

[Humidston]

Could he possibly be worried about that little niggly eminent domain issue and how it may pertain to his own family homestead? Maybe that's the reason he has his shorts in a wad.

These elitists think it's fine to make rules for all of us slobs out here, but when someone tries to turn the tables on him/them, THAT'S UNFAIR!

Oh Stevie, "CRY ME A RIVER."

[Rockingham]

Breyer seems to be waking up, but he is all too late and has little awareness of the peril for the Court and the entire American judicial system. Breyer is much like the comic relief in a disaster movie: the clueless sleeping passenger who, as the train is about to go off the rails and careen down the mountainside, vaguely senses a bump or two, yawns, opens his eyes, creases his brow -- and warns his fellow passengers that the train seems to be running late.

The Supreme Court and other American courts are justly suffering a decline in respect and deference, with far more to come. Many courts are compromised by routine favoritism, corruption, and institutional weaknesses; and the Supreme Court and other appellate courts long ago arrogated to themselves vast antidemocratic lawmaking powers in the guise of interpretation and adjudication.

The peril for the courts is that the rubes without black robes are catching on to the extent of the judiciary's cons and abuses. The courts now have but a diminishing constituency of blindly faithful to call upon. Even most lawyers and more than a few judges, among themselves, are given these days to complaints about the judiciary with little sense of hope of obtaining improvements and remedies. The wiser course is to get a friend or partner appointed or elected to the bench for some inside help of your own.

At the trial level, good judges are a treasure, but they are ever more surrounded by the dross of stupid, weak, and too often bad judges. At the appellate level, traditional judicial concepts like "strict construction" and "original intent" are now seen as not just quaint or outmoded but as sinister restraints to judicial lawmaking. When the highest courts are inclined to make the law up as they go along for the sake of preferred results, why should trial courts or anyone else respect the law and courts except for their power to punish and reward?

The Left's view of the judiciary and their attacks on Roberts and other Bush judicial nominees all carry the implicit assumption that judges are inherent partisans with little fidelity to traditional conceptions of the rule of law. Is it any wonder that the public now increasingly regards judges as political partisans in their decision-making? That being so, why should the American people accept the loss of self-government in favor of rule by unelected judges?

The Left always assumed that it could use the courts as their political weapon indefinitely. Now, as respect for judges and courts diminishes, the Left is increasingly fearful that their value as a political asset is also diminishing. But they are too far along in their approach to turn back, and the Left's increasingly frantic attacks on Roberts and other Bush judicial nominees all carry the implicit assumption that judges are inherent partisans with little fidelity to traditional conceptions of the rule of law.

The American judiciary, courts, and legal system are now like old buildings that will require vast effort and years of restoration work, with difficult questions as to how much to restore and how much should be torn down. And why not tear down?

If Roberts is unfit to serve because he was in the Federalist Society, served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and has conservative views, then why shouldn't former Teddy Kenedy aide Breyer and ACLU lawyer Ginzberg be called to account for their far more extensive ties to the Left and corresponding political views?

One need not endorse the removal of Breyer and Ginzberg, only that they be impeached so that, as with Judge Roberts, they can be questioned in detail. As extreme as that is politically and constitutionally, there would be a logic to such demands, as there was with the Jeffersonian era impeachment effort against Salmon Chase for federalist views and decisions. Or perhaps such an effort will be instigated against Scalia and Thomas if Hillary Clinton is elected and the Democrats gain control of Congress.

If a bare 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court suffices again and again for radical changes in American law and life by antidemocratic means, then shouldn't a resolute political majority make radical changes in the Supreme Court in ways that the Constitution permits and the public approves of? If Justice Breyer were a wiser man, he would regularly wake up in a cold sweat at the damage that he and his ideological confreres have done the Supreme Court and the American judicial system.

[EGPWS]

Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker.

No matter who is the educator is, 2+2 will never =5.

[EGPWS]

"...judicial independence..."

What IS that?

A term used by the elite when common sense has already left the building.

[NickatNite2003]

It's Judicial *Imperialism* that Breyer, Kennedy,
Ginsburg, and the ACLU plague rats, want to keep
in thier control.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker."

The "Court" is NOT "independent". It is "fed" by its "minions" that it adjudicates for and against. It is also restricted by the constitution of the U.S. of A. with its attendent amendments. Or, at least used to and should be. Nowhere in the constitution is the "Court" given "independence". Impeach the politically appointed bureaucratic bums in black dresses who say, "The court is independent." Peace and love, George.

[Barney59]

It's a good thing. Pour on the pressure... then we'll see what this SCOTUS really looks like... We'll be hearing quite a bit of crying from the liberal members as accountability looms...

[kittymyrib]

Boo-freakin'-hoo! If we wanted to have a dictatorship by 5 unelected judges, we could have written that in the Constitution and saved a lot of tax money not paying for the Congress and Senate.
I think he's just worried that a group of angry citizens might make an offer to build a mall where Breyer's house now stands. Every one of the justices who voted to take the people's private property rights away should have their homes bulldozed "for the common good."

[Hardastarboard]

Breyer is lower than pond scum. He knows less about the US Constitution than Mark Levin.

Hey, that's not fair! Of course he knows less about the Constitution than Mark Levin. He's only a Supreme Court Justice. What do you want from the man?

[Peach]

I saw a picture on FNC of Lindsey sitting next to Breyer and thought "it's the LAST straw".

[NonValueAdded]

Oh bull$shit, Breyer, the decisions are over the line and you know it. The education system hasn't finished dumbing us down enough that we can't read and understand the opinions and realize how far off the reservation you've strayed. Telling us to STFU and take it isn't going to work. Does the phrase "the consent of the governed" mean anything to you?

[Credo]

Breyer,

You make political, instead of judicial decisions, you get political criticism.

Deal with it.

[Rippin]

He thinks he can make decisions independent of the constitution, that's the whole problem.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The Nine in Black are looking less these days like heroes to the common man and common sense...and more like Nazgul.

If the President were to give them all a gold ring...

[Stayfree]

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.

Me thinks that the emperor has no clothes..the constitution does not require liberal morons masquerading as judges to have "judicial independence". This halfwit needs to resign immediately and seek some serious therapy because he obviously thinks he exists on another planet!

Greetings from all of us at FlushHillary.com!!