2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices Finally Respond to Repub Criticism(s)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050413/ts_usatoday/justicesdefendcourtsindependence

Seems they're more worried about the threat of gun-toting sociopaths than any political attack:

Justices defend court's independence

Wed Apr 13, 9:53 AM ET

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas on Tuesday defended the independence of federal judges and suggested that criticism such as that directed at the federal bench recently by Republican leaders in Congress is simply part of the democratic process.

The justices' comments came during a congressional hearing on the Supreme Court's budget that turned into an unusually wide-ranging discussion of the role of judges. Thomas noted that federal judges are appointed for life, which means that although they might be criticized by politicians, the judges are insulated from real retribution.

"I think the reason we have lifetime appointments is that we are supposed to be criticized," Thomas said.

The justices' two-hour appearance before a House Appropriations subcommittee gave them a chance to respond generally to a series of complaints about the federal bench. Such complaints have escalated recently as some Republicans in Congress have blasted federal judges for not intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman in Florida who died March 31 after a state judge ordered her feeding tube removed.


"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who referred to a "judiciary run amok." Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, has criticized judges who make "political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public."


DeLay was a leading supporter of unusual legislation that Congress passed to allow Schiavo's parents to make a final appeal to a federal court to try to stop Schiavo's husband, Michael, from having the feeding tube removed. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to intervene.


Kennedy said criticism of the federal bench is part of "the democratic dialogue," and he dismissed a suggestion by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., that the Supreme Court should be concerned about public dissatisfaction with its decisions. Kennedy noted that the most controversial rulings begin with dissent among the justices themselves.


Kennedy and Thomas also emphasized the need for more security at the high court, in part to protect against threats to the nine justices and others in the court's marble building


The court's proposed budget of $66 million for next year includes money to add 11 police officers to the court's current squad of about 130. One new officer would assess threats made against the justices.

Thomas said he believes the Internet has helped critics of various rulings incite anger at the justices. Explaining why he thinks that the court needs more police officers, Thomas said, "I think we have been on borrowed time for a long time."


Separately, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which handles budget requests for lower federal courts, asked Congress for $12 million to install home-security systems for the more than 800 federal judges. The request follows the slayings of the husband and mother of federal judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow of Chicago.


Kennedy said it had not been determined whether the home-security request would cover Supreme Court justices.


Tuesday's session was marked by a collegiality that contrasted with the recent rhetoric by DeLay and Cornyn. Rep. Ed Pastor (news, bio, voting record), D-Ariz., said he disagrees with many high court rulings, but he said he respects the justices' independence.


Tiahrt, the only panel member who criticized rulings by the high court, said he was concerned that the court has cited international law in rulings. "Lately we've had rulings that seem to go beyond the rule of law," he said, referring particularly to a decision last month that struck down the death penalty for those who committed their crimes as juveniles.


Kennedy wrote the court's opinion in that case, a decision in which he noted that the USA was virtually alone in the world in allowing executions of juvenile offenders. As Tiahrt spoke Tuesday, Kennedy showed no emotion, and he did not respond directly to Tiahrt's criticism. Kennedy did, however, note the court's history of dealing with controversial issues.

altho it's interesting that they never address whether they thought any criticisms were valid, any possible motivations for such, or whether such criticisms could be made in such a way to incite such security threats.

kingfish, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

"The justices' comments came during a congressional hearing on the Supreme Court's budget that turned into an unusually wide-ranging discussion of the role of judges."

I love that. Come for the budget talks, stay for THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:50 (twenty years ago)

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who referred to a "judiciary run amok."

And DeLay is supposedly on record as wanting some impeachment re: this amok judicating. I'm hoping the glass house he's in is made of plexiglass, so those stones he's throwing bounce back & whack him square in the middle of his bassackwards-thinking good-for-shit head. Also - hey, there, Tomas, THERE ARE TWO WOMEN ON THE BENCH. HELP RUN ONE GOVERNMENT (but, please, not ours).

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

David, maybe he's just giving Ginsburg and O'Connor a pass on this one.

M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

Bah.

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

This today on the Bolton confirmation hearings - HILARIOUS:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/13/MNGQIC7FT71.DTL

"Ford's gruff, direct and sometimes off-color manner took some senators aback, as when he described Bolton's dressing-down of Westermann, saying that 'he reamed him a new one.'

"It was hardly the kind of language usually heard from diplomats appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it raised eyebrows, but also chuckles, among the senators, their aides and the rows of spectators."

andy --, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050425&s=blumenthal

Michael Schwartz must have thought I was just another attendee of the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference. I approached the chief of staff of Oklahoma's GOP Senator Tom Coburn outside the conference in downtown Washington last Thursday afternoon after he spoke there. Before I could introduce myself, he turned to me and another observer with a crooked smile and exclaimed, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

[...]

The threatening tenor of the conference speakers was a calculated tactic. As Gary Cass, the director of Rev. D. James Kennedy's lobbying front, the Center for Reclaiming America, explained, they are arousing the anger of their base in order to harness it politically. The rising tide of threats against judges "is understandable," Cass told me, "but we have to take the opportunity to channel that into a constitutional solution."

Cass's "solution" is the "Constitution Restoration Act," a bill relentlessly promoted during the conference that authorizes Congress to impeach judges who fail to abide by "the standard of good behavior" required by the Constitution. If they refuse to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment. In essence, the bill would turn judges' gavels into mere instruments of "The Hammer," Tom DeLay, and Christian-right cadres...

these people really are fucked in the head.

kingfish, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

I thought that all common law countries used each other's rulings as potential precendents or at least cited them in their opinions.

M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

probably, but in an increasingly xenophobic country, that apparently doesn't pass muster with certain folks.

kingfish, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 18:25 (twenty years ago)

Tom DeLay's time for doing some answering upon his behavior should be coming up soon.

earlnash, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 18:31 (twenty years ago)

The US isn't xenophobic - that implies fear. These folks just hate the outside world. They were furious about the judges' remarks on the fact that we're the last country that executes people convicted of teen crimes. Even though the US essentially started the UN, these hillbillies want to shut it down.

andy --, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 18:32 (twenty years ago)

The US isn't xenophobic - that implies fear. These folks just hate the outside world.

exactly. the term reminds me of dave q's excellent response to calling gay-haters "homophobes" -- i.e., that when the term "homophobe" is explained to such people their response will be "i ain't afraid of no faggot1"

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

And they'll respond w/ the 1 instead of the exclamation point, too, the morans.

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 19:32 (twenty years ago)

and, SHOCKINGLY, GOP-appointed judges already control 10 of 13 U.S. appeals courts.

As Democrats and Republicans in Washington prepare for an expected showdown over the use of filibusters to stall judicial nominees, President Bush is already well on his way to recasting the nation's federal appeals courts in a more conservative mold.
Republican appointees now constitute a majority of judges on 10 of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts. As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would tip the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court - the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The confrontation over judges heats up Thursday with the Senate Judiciary Committee expected to send a second appeals court candidate to the full Senate for a possible vote. The process is being closely watched because if either nomination triggers a filibuster, it could provide the vehicle for Republican senators to launch the so-called nuclear option, which would squelch filibusters.

It will be up to Senate majority leader Bill Frist to decide when to schedule a floor vote on Thomas Griffith, nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. William Myers, a nominee to the Ninth Circuit, is also pending a floor vote.

Even if Republicans refrain from a nuclear option in these proceedings, legal analysts say the Bush administration is already accomplishing a significant shift within the federal judiciary. By winning a second term, he is well positioned to leave a presidential legacy that could take Democrats a decade or more to reverse.


also,

Jonah Goldberg decides to add more to the fun, taking shots at both Dobson, liberal judges, Sen. Robert Byrd, all by beginnging with a Blazing Saddles reference:

Last time I checked, activist federal judges weren't riding into towns on horseback, whoopin' and a-hollerin', burning crosses on lawns and lynching folks for no good reason.

I bring this up for the benefit of James Dobson, who needs to spend a couple minutes breathing into a brown paper bag before he does his next radio show. The other day, while discussing federal judges, Dobson had this to say: "I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights to and to morality. And now we have black-robed men."

[....]

This drift in the courts has suited liberals just fine. Stymied at the polls, they have run with the ball wherever the field is open, in this case the courts. And that's why Democrats can talk as absurdly as Dobson, often from the well of the Senate. Just last month, Sen. Robert Byrd — that actual former Klansman and towering titan of Southern gothic asininity — compared the "nuclear option" — i.e., the attempt to impose majority rule in the Senate — to Hitler's rise to power. And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calls the GOP's desire to reform Senate rules to end filibusters on judicial appointments an example of Republican craving for "absolute power"! Zoiks!

[...]

....Judges are unilateral legislators, unchecked by democratic accountability. Liberal judges have held sway for so long that any conservative judge who tries to undo what has been done will inevitably look "activist" in his own right. And let's be honest, some conservative judges are perfectly happy with an imperial judiciary, so long as it's a right-wing imperial judiciary.

kingfish, Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would tip the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court - the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

not coincidentally, the wingnuts HATE the 9th circuit with a PASSION.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 14 April 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.