lawrocket 3 #1 January 10, 2005 I wanted to post this a while ago. I'd like to see what people think of the (pretty much Republican measures) to scrutinize federal judgeships. Since federal judges have lifetime tenures to ensure that federal judges do not have to do the PC thing, this Congressional stance is worrisome. Said Rehnquist, "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment... Any other rule," he added, "would destroy judicial independence," since "judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them." Trust me. I find myself concerned about federal judges sometimes, especially the liberal ones. But it's nice to see Rehnquist standing up and saying, "Congress - knock it off." Practically, he's defending the Ninth Circuit. He's also reiteratig that "good behavior" has nothing to do with the legal decisions of a judge. What are your thoughts? story: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050101/ZNYT02/501010418 What are your thought My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #2 January 10, 2005 Eroding the independence of the judiciary would be a bad thing for the nation as a whole. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 January 10, 2005 I have no idea about the more specific issues going on in the US at the moment but on a more general note I've found that many people don't fully understand the importance of a strong separation between the legislative/executive and the judiciary. It's a common fundamental strength of both our constitutions and something which should be fought extremely hard to preserve. Trust me; you do not want to give government the power to mess around with the judiciary. Many countries before now have found that a strong and independent judiciary is the last mechanism by which an errant government may be held to account. If the courts have been rendered impotent by government control, the populous is left to resort to civil disobedience and in the most extreme cases armed resistance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #4 January 10, 2005 QuoteEroding the independence of the judiciary would be a bad thing for the nation as a whole. Agreed. A courthouse in Kansas has a great quote: "A Free and Independant Court for a Free and Independant People." Wonder where that quote originated.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #5 January 10, 2005 Not to hijack the thread away from US politics, but as coincidence would have it, there has been a recent news article suggesting that the South African judiciary is under political threat. QuoteOn Saturday, at the organisation's 93rd anniversary celebrations, the (ANC) party's national executive said there was a challenge to transform the "collective mindset" of the judiciary to bring it into line with the aspirations of "the millions who engaged in struggle to liberate our country from white minority domination". It said many within the judiciary "do not see themselves as being part of these masses, accountable to them, and inspired by their hopes, dreams and value systems". In a speech delivered at the New York University Law School in the United States, the leader of the main opposition party, Tony Leon, had the following view: Quote"By its own declaration, the ANC is not satisfied with legislative and executive power. It wants to control the judiciary as well, along with all other nominally independent institutions provided for by the Constitution, as part of what it calls the "National Democratic Revolution". "There is also a widespread impression today that no white male judge will be accepted for appointment to the Bench in the near future - that the requirements of demographics and racial redress will trump individual merit. "That perception has been fuelled by the recent pattern of decisions made by the Judicial Service Commission." Leon said the JSC had last week refused to appoint Geoff Budlender to a permanent position at the Cape High Court, the "third consecutive time that the JSC had rejected him". "Budlender, who has been a previous guest of the South Africa Reading Group here in New York, is a man of exceptional abilities who has led one of the most distinguished and honourable careers of any member of the legal profession in South Africa. "The impression created is that no white judge can possibly be good enough for appointment, no matter how sterling his legal career and political credentials." Leon said South Africa could not afford to create a judiciary that was divided on racial lines. "Such a judiciary cannot be fully and truly independent, for it must conform to the racial categories imposed by the government, instead of the non-racial principles enshrined in the Constitution," he warned. No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #6 January 10, 2005 I agree that it is a bad idea to have the legislative branch meddling with the judicial. No good there. But Metalslug brings up a good point in one of his quotes... should these judges be accountable to the people that they serve, the citizens? What happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? They should have to answer to someone... and that should be "us".Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #7 January 10, 2005 QuoteI agree that it is a bad idea to have the legislative branch meddling with the judicial.[/url] Agreed. Same with the Executive branch. Judicial is there to interpret the law._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #8 January 10, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? Popular sentiment should not play any part, whatsoever, in a Federal judges rulings... the only thing that should is the law, and ultimately the Constitution... The people get their say when they elect the President and their Senators. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #9 January 10, 2005 There's an amazing amount of trust placed in the supreme court. If it ever got radical one way or the other, it would be impossible to stop. It just seems a little strange to me that so many people can distrust our government, but trust our judicial branch with so much power.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #10 January 10, 2005 QuoteThere's an amazing amount of trust placed in the supreme court. If it ever got radical one way or the other, it would be impossible to stop. It just seems a little strange to me that so many people can distrust our government, but trust our judicial branch with so much power. It is an interesting dichotomy. My Supreme Court history is lacking - is there any real history of a Justice being radical, or the entire bench?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #11 January 10, 2005 They do have a tremendous amount of power, potentially anyway... they seem to be wary of using it lately... I agree that if it got radical one way or another it could be very bad one way or another... that is why their appointment is so important, not just cursory part of the President's or Senante's duties.... it you got a HoR, Senate, President that wanted the country to be socialist, and they had the opportunity to load up the court with like minded judges, who would ignore the Constitution, we would be socialist... of course it could go the other way too. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #12 January 10, 2005 QuoteMy Supreme Court history is lacking - is there any real history of a Justice being radical, or the entire bench? I guess it depends on who you ask. I don't know if it has ever been radical to the point of massive popular agreement on the matter. Of course, that's not to say that it can't or won't happen. Like you said, I just found the dichotomy of the situation quite interesting.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #13 January 10, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? A judge's job, I believe, is to interpret the law. I believe that the appeals process is somewhat of a check or balance in the system, isn't it? If you've got a particular situation where the populace disagrees with an original ruling and the appellate rulings then perhaps it's time to look at changing or repealing the law. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #14 January 10, 2005 QuoteEroding the independence of the judiciary would be a bad thing for the nation as a whole. Simply put and yet very wisly spoken. Oh be quiet - there are alot of people agreeing in here these days.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #15 January 11, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? They should have to answer to someone... and that should be "us". They are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. The FF gave us a way to tell the Supreme Court our thoughts on things, namely ammendments to the Constitution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jdhill 0 #8 January 10, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? Popular sentiment should not play any part, whatsoever, in a Federal judges rulings... the only thing that should is the law, and ultimately the Constitution... The people get their say when they elect the President and their Senators. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #9 January 10, 2005 There's an amazing amount of trust placed in the supreme court. If it ever got radical one way or the other, it would be impossible to stop. It just seems a little strange to me that so many people can distrust our government, but trust our judicial branch with so much power.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #10 January 10, 2005 QuoteThere's an amazing amount of trust placed in the supreme court. If it ever got radical one way or the other, it would be impossible to stop. It just seems a little strange to me that so many people can distrust our government, but trust our judicial branch with so much power. It is an interesting dichotomy. My Supreme Court history is lacking - is there any real history of a Justice being radical, or the entire bench?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #11 January 10, 2005 They do have a tremendous amount of power, potentially anyway... they seem to be wary of using it lately... I agree that if it got radical one way or another it could be very bad one way or another... that is why their appointment is so important, not just cursory part of the President's or Senante's duties.... it you got a HoR, Senate, President that wanted the country to be socialist, and they had the opportunity to load up the court with like minded judges, who would ignore the Constitution, we would be socialist... of course it could go the other way too. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #12 January 10, 2005 QuoteMy Supreme Court history is lacking - is there any real history of a Justice being radical, or the entire bench? I guess it depends on who you ask. I don't know if it has ever been radical to the point of massive popular agreement on the matter. Of course, that's not to say that it can't or won't happen. Like you said, I just found the dichotomy of the situation quite interesting.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #13 January 10, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? A judge's job, I believe, is to interpret the law. I believe that the appeals process is somewhat of a check or balance in the system, isn't it? If you've got a particular situation where the populace disagrees with an original ruling and the appellate rulings then perhaps it's time to look at changing or repealing the law. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #14 January 10, 2005 QuoteEroding the independence of the judiciary would be a bad thing for the nation as a whole. Simply put and yet very wisly spoken. Oh be quiet - there are alot of people agreeing in here these days.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 January 11, 2005 QuoteWhat happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? They should have to answer to someone... and that should be "us". They are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. The FF gave us a way to tell the Supreme Court our thoughts on things, namely ammendments to the Constitution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
