• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rehnquist Decries Pressure on 'Judicial Activists'

  • Thread starter Thread starter OS
  • Start date Start date

OS

Lifer
WASHINGTON ? Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in a report to be issued Saturday that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from office.

"The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice, whose future on the court is subject to wide speculation, said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts.

The public, the media and politicians are certainly free to criticize judges, Rehnquist said, but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with.

His comments come as the new Congress faces what many predict will be a contentious battle over President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. And if his health forces Rehnquist to announce his retirement, there would be more partisan wrangling over his successor.

The 80-year old chief justice has been absent from the Supreme Court since he disclosed in late October that he was being treated for thyroid cancer.

Since 2000, when Republicans took control of the White House and both houses of Congress, many conservative critics have focused their ire on "judicial activists" on the bench.

In his report, the chief justice did not name names, but instead spoke of his concern for the "mounting criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as `judicial activism.' "

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, for example, has repeatedly threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers.

"A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence," Rehnquist said. "Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

As the chief justice of the United States, Rehnquist leads the federal judicial system as well as the Supreme Court. Since taking office in 1986, he often has used his year-end report to set forth his views on controversies affecting the judiciary system. The controversy over political leanings of judges and their rulings is one of them.

Yet, despite Rehnquist's reputation for conservatism, he has been just as willing to fault Republicans as Democrats when their actions and ideas threaten the courts.

In the late 1990s, for example, he faulted Senate Republicans for blocking votes on the judicial nominees of former President Clinton. More recently, he faulted Senate Democrats for blocking votes on Bush's nominees.

In both instances, he said the nominees deserved a hearing and an up-or-down vote.

Delay has often criticized judges when he thinks they have overstepped their authority.

"Many of these judges begin to grow drunk on their own power. Why shouldn't the people have a right to impeach these out-of-control judges?" DeLay said in one 1997 statement.

Last year, DeLay called for Congress to enact legislation that would remove certain issues, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

DeLay was reacting to the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Congress' inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance used daily in the nation's schools amounted to an unconstitutional official endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court, though divided on its reasons, later set aside that ruling.

Although Rehnquist and DeLay may agree on the preferred outcome on these issues, the chief justice said the proper way to challenge a misguided ruling is to appeal it to a higher court.

"The appellate process provides a remedy" for those who believe a judge has erred, he said.

And over time, the public can changes the courts, he said, by electing presidents and senators who reflect their views.

Rehnquist is fond of citing the example of President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. In his first term, a conservative Supreme Court struck down many of FDR's New Deal laws. After winning a landslide re-election in 1936, Roosevelt struck back and proposed to change and expand the membership of the Supreme Court.

Although his "court packing" plan failed, FDR succeeded nonetheless, Rehnquist noted.

"President Roosevelt lost this battle in Congress, but he eventually won the war to change the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court. He won it the way our Constitution envisions such wars being won -- by the gradual process of changing the federal Judiciary through the appointment process," he wrote.

During his second term, Roosevelt replaced five retiring conservative justices with New Deal liberals and transformed the high court for the next generation.

While the 18-page report issued Saturday includes passages that blandly recite statistics, much of it expresses the distinctive ideas and writing style of the chief justice.

An amateur historian, Rehnquist has written four books as chief justice, including "Grand Inquests," a study of the impeachment trials of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 and of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He concluded that those failed impeachments strengthened the independence of both justices and presidents. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan and political weapon, he wrote, but instead should be reserved for instances of high-level corruption.

By coincidence, shortly after his book appeared, Rehnquist was called upon to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of former President Clinton in 1999. At its conclusion, he announced Clinton's acquittal on all the charges.

Rehnquist made only a brief reference to his illness in his year-end report. "On a personal note, I also want to thank all of those who have sent their good wishes on my speedy recovery," he wrote.

Court officials said he has continued to work at home. And to the surprise of some, he also has announced that he plans to give the oath of office to Bush at his second inauguration on Jan. 20.

link
 
Good to hear the old man is standing up for judicial independence, even if it means decisions get made that he disagrees with on a personal-political level.

Thought I'd post this article, for some background info on the "activist judges" debate:


The False Debate Over 'Activist' Judges

By Steve Sanders

First published January 27, 2004, in Res Gestae, a student-edited newspaper at the University of Michigan Law School.

At a recent lunchtime event on judicial nominations, a student prefaced his question by explaining that he was a member of the Federalist Society because he preferred judges ?who interpret law rather than make law.?

I don?t know this student, so nothing here is intended personally. But I can?t understand how someone can finish even a semester of law school and claim he can readily distinguish between ?interpreting? the law (something, apparently, a card-carrying Federalist does) and ?making? law (something activist liberal judges do).

Conservatives have gotten a lot of mileage with this idea. It appeals to non-lawyers who believe the proper role of judges is like turning a crank. You take the relevant inputs (facts, precedents, statutes, whatever), ?apply? some law, and out pops objective, principled justice. A few more advances in Westlaw and we might not even need human judges.

Interestingly, when a controversial political or cultural issue is involved, the result this system is expected to produce almost always comports with the tastes, will, or prejudices of the majority.

Charges of judicial activism often are lodged against rulings that support the rights of a political or cultural minority.

But jurisprudence goes awry when ?activist? judges sabotage the machinery by substituting their ?arbitrary will? (President Bush?s words in the State of Union) to achieve their own ideological ends. A sure sign this has happened is when the result supports the rights or aspirations of a political or cultural minority.

In short, many conservatives, full of phony populist indignation, tell a dishonest, oversimplified story to an ill-informed public. This provides cover for conservatives to appoint their own judges ? many of whom are committed not to some tedious process of cranking the legal machinery, but rather to making law that reflects their policy preferences.

The mechanical conception of judges? work may be appropriate to trial courts, which are bound to apply law as they find it. Yet often what trial courts apply is common law ? law that was made by other judges. The common law?s enduring strength is its ability to evolve alongside human understanding and norms of behavior while gradually shedding outdated shibboleths.

Thus, one important role of appellate courts is to evaluate a law?s rationality, workability, and constitutionality. This is not an inherently liberal or conservative enterprise.

Every student knows the law is full of open-ended questions. What did the legislature ?intend?? Does text ?bear the weight? of a given reading? Did the court below ?abuse its discretion?? When is stare decisis inappropriate? What is ?reasonable?? The idea that conservative judges aren?t as capable or willing to manipulate these fudge factors as avidly and effectively as liberals sometimes do is the essential lie of the conservative legal movement.

Take one example: In the 1996 Hopwood case, the Fifth Circuit gave a major victory to conservative agitators and struck down affirmative action at the University of Texas, overthrowing longstanding legal, legislative, and social consensus. The arguments for doing so may or may not have been persuasive. But don?t say this wasn?t activism.

How about Justice Scalia?s ongoing obsession with overturning the settled law of Roe v. Wade? Roe may well have been flawed as a matter of legal reasoning. But Scalia, a Federalist high priest whose ?textualism? is often confused with judicial minimalism, has no interest in ?interpreting? that decision. He wants to blow it up.

The Federalists can?t have it both ways ? grooving to every cranky Scalia eruption, yet publicly claiming to want more disinterested judicial drones, and all the while praying for the retirements of actual independent-minded moderates like O?Connor and Kennedy.

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained why denying the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples is unfair, no longer supported by persuasive reasoning, and a violation of the state?s constitution. This obviously makes for major change in the law. Yet the court did not just issue an edict. Its opinion is there for all to read, and should stand or fall on its own accuracy, honesty, and rigor.

But I have yet to hear a conservative political or legal commentator engage the history, findings, or logic of the actual Massachusetts opinion. That isn?t the stuff of sound bites. Conservatives seem content to let thugs like Bill O?Reilly ? who simply smears any judge he disagrees with as an undemocratic radical ? instruct the public on these matters. And so, many Americans confuse prejudice and sectarian dogma with legal reasoning.

The legal right needs to give up the conceit of its purity. Thoughtful conservatives and liberals have different visions of justice and social utility, and these visions will affect how they shape the law. We can only insist on judges whose work is clear, exacting, and intellectually honest ? transparent to citizens, and persuasive to those who are trained to evaluate legal argument.

Meanwhile, law students should know better than to describe our vocation with slogans and simplifications.

http://www.indegayforum.org/au.../sanders/sanders2.html
 
"Judicial activism" is just a code word for a decision somebody doens't like.

I might not agree with the Chief Justice all the time, but I think he's a fair and reasonable guy most of the time.
 
Back
Top