Tendo City

Quote:Court Justice Worried About Criticism By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 9, 6:52 PM ET


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 (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.

Most of this is really peripheral but one part stands out, that being the second paragraph.

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

This really is the element of what's wrong with the Supreme Court. The Court is NOT an independent decision-maker. It was not intended to be. When the Founders wrote the constitution, they set up the political triumvirate and the system of checks and balances to prevent exactly this. If you have one branch that can act independent of the other two, you open the door for total control and abuse of power, and that's what we're beginning to see from the Court at times.

I think it's laughable that any member of the Court would complain about interference, when a position on the court is by great leaps and bounds the most secure political position in the entire Federal Government. Justices are appointed for life. They never once have to worry about the opinions of the people whose decisions they directly affect.

This is why I think it's time to think about bringing some aspects of the Court into modern times, to retool it. It's time for direct elections of Justices. It's time to remind said Justices that they are part of the system, not above it.

You know, I was starting to see their way of thinking in this, that they wouldn't want "petty politics" involved, but in the end our government is a necessary evil (as a founding father once put it). Sure cheap political ploys can be used, but in the end you are right, the judges ARE meant to fear reprisals, within limits in the constitution, from the other branches. They HAVE to have an idea that they are representing the people.

You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them!

Quote:You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them!

Yeah, I thought of this... 25 years or something would be good. People didn't live too long on average in 1792...

Quote:You know, I was starting to see their way of thinking in this, that they wouldn't want "petty politics" involved, but in the end our government is a necessary evil (as a founding father once put it). Sure cheap political ploys can be used, but in the end you are right, the judges ARE meant to fear reprisals, within limits in the constitution, from the other branches. They HAVE to have an idea that they are representing the people.

Judges are supposed to be apolitical, so anything they do to try to maintain that in such an extremely partizan time as ours is probably a good thing...

But shoudn't they also try to balance the needs of the people as well? I'm pretty sure that allowing the goverment to take your property and give it to Wal-Mart isn't doing that.

I'm not sure they are meant to be apolitical... Having to consider the opinions of the other two parts of government with potential consequences seems to be a part of that whole check and/or balance thing. I hate to use an extreme example and I know where this analogy fails, but when a dictator finally comes to power, political considerations no longer exist except in terms of preventing rebellion or outside invasion.

Quote:But shoudn't they also try to balance the needs of the people as well? I'm pretty sure that allowing the goverment to take your property and give it to Wal-Mart isn't doing that.

Only to a degree. Remember, our government was created to have layers to insulate overall government policy from popular movements... the founders were suspicious of the people, even if they did end up with a very liberal constitution for the time, and it shows. All of the layers are there to keep the people from having too much direct impact on what the government does... over time some of that has eroded away (and rightly I'd say), but not all, and not all of it should go. This is probably a case of that... them making the decision from a purely legal stance (though I have no idea how they managed to convince themselves that this goes with the spirit of the constitution...), not one that is based on popular opinion. (usually not going with popular opinion is a good thing, but here if you look at it as a case of that it's not, intrestingly enough... (you know, I'd consider the standard example of 'not following sudden public pressure' would be the 'no sudden popular movement can take over government in the space of two years (and that's good)' thing)

Quote:I'm not sure they are meant to be apolitical... Having to consider the opinions of the other two parts of government with potential consequences seems to be a part of that whole check and/or balance thing. I hate to use an extreme example and I know where this analogy fails, but when a dictator finally comes to power, political considerations no longer exist except in terms of preventing rebellion or outside invasion.

They're supposed to be above partizan political concerns, for sure...