Bench Repair (Op-ed by Judge Pickering)

Washington Times ^ | March 26, 2006 | Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr.

[RWR8189]

During the hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sam Alito, a good and decent man, the American public saw the raw, ugly underside of the judicial confirmation battle: Ted Kennedy's self-righteous, judgmental, holier-than-thou grilling of Judge Alito, and Mrs. Alito's obvious hurt over how her husband was treated.

With good lawyers making far more money than federal judges, with nominees now facing a virtual firing squad at confirmation, it is no wonder studies now show half of those approached about being nominated to the federal judiciary say "no thanks." And it is not surprising the "brightest and best" young lawyers are deciding to direct their legal careers away from a judicial tract. They simply are unwilling to subject themselves and their families to such a humiliating process where they are viewed as mere pawns in a bitter, highly partisan political fight, and not as real flesh-and-blood human beings with feelings and pride in their records.

When the "brightest and best" say "no thanks," that should seriously disturb all Americans. If this trend continues, it will devastate our judiciary.

If Democrats think some Republicans won't use the same tactics as those used by Sens. Kennedy, Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin the next time a Democrat is in the White House, they have to be living in fantasyland.

What brought on this unfortunate fight? The transfer of all the hot button social issues: Partial-birth abortion, abortion for teenagers without parental consent or even parental notification, same-sex "marriage," references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, at public buildings, ceremonies and institutions, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, rewriting history to delete all references to a religious motivation in the settling and building of America, and hard-core and child pornography -- are being settled in the courts of our

[digger48]

If Democrats think some Republicans won't use the same tactics as those used by Sens. Kennedy, Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin the next time a Democrat is in the White House, they have to be living in fantasy

I'd like to think there would be, but I somehow doubt it. And you can bet the cameras will conveniently look away if they ever try to

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Now that's a great idea.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The media will crucify Republicans if they do it. They only turn away from Democrats acting bad, or defend their bad behavior. The fix suggested by Pickering is very interesting. I wonder if it would work, or if it would be one more amendment for the liberal judges to twist and torture according to their own perverted will.

[supercat]

Now that's a great idea.

I don't like the last sentence, though. Any time there is a conflict between stare decisis and the plain text meaning of the Constitution and statutes, the plain text meaning should prevail.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yeah, that's a good point.

[gidget7]

"The Constitution and the amendments thereto duly adopted in the future may be changed, modified, amended or added to only by amendment duly adopted as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts will create law, change, modify, amend, or add to the Constitution, but will interpret the Constitution and amendments in accordance with the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted. This amendment does not affect the weight to be given prior decisions under the Doctrine of stare decisis."

" I urge Congress to submit to the states a constitutional amendment that will take the judiciary out of politics and reaffirm the strictly judicial role of judges. "



Great article! If only Congress would do it. Many things should come to a vote by the people.

[gidget7]

Weight is given to stare decisis, but it doesn't always guarantee a win for the side that it favors. Just means some weight is given. True, some judges could use it to their advantage.

[upchuck]

The amendment process is feasible. Between 1933 and 1971, the Constitution was amended seven times, an average of one amendment every five to six years. We quit using the amendment process only after liberals discovered the Constitution can be changed easier by convincing five judges.

Judge Pickering nailed it.

But Thomas Jefferson said it more cogently:

If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary.

[T Ruth]

Neither the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts will create law, change, modify, amend, or add to the Constitution, but will interpret the Constitution and amendments in accordance with the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted.

And who will interpret and apply this? If this were enacted, nothing would change. The judges would still do whatever they want.