Republican Senator blames recent violence against judges on "judicial activism"

[Applejack]

Where in the hell do these people come from? :rolleyes:

I somehow doubt that when one shoots a judge's family for not giving him a big malpractice award or so he can get out of a rape acquittal he is thinking about the proper role of judges in our government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html

Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions
'Unaccountable' Judiciary Raises Ire

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A07

Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.

In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."

Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. DeLay (R-Tex.) rebuked federal and state judges who had ruled in the Schiavo case, saying, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said last night that Cornyn, "like Tom DeLay, should know better. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the senator's remarks "an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are 'unaccountable' to the public."

Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart declined to speculate on what instances of violence the senator had in mind. "He was talking about things that have come up and concerned him," Stewart said.

In his speech, Cornyn criticized the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on March 1 that said it is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. "In so holding," Cornyn said, "the U.S. Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to leave this in the hands of jurors. We do not trust jurors. We are no longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the people of the respective states."

In a recent New York Times article, John Kane, a senior judge in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, wrote: "Since 1970, 10 state and federal judges have been murdered, seven of them in job-related incidents. Those who threaten judges are almost always disturbed individuals seeking revenge. . . . Of the three federal judges killed in the last quarter-century, all were killed by men disgruntled with their treatment from the federal judicial system."

[X]

Looks like Texas.

[wendersfan]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/04-06-2005.gif

[Venusian]

the subject is misleading, he doesn't blame them, he says he doesn't know...but he does try to link them

[Red Dog]

the subject is misleading, he doesn't blame them, he says he doesn't know...but he does try to link them


Yep and to suggest a link here is ridiculous and only serves inflame the current debate over the judiciary. These are irresponsible statements and he should know better than to use courtroom violence as political ammunition in a debate over the role of the judiciary.

[nemein]

Yep and to suggest a link here is ridiculous and only serves inflame the current debate over the judiciary. These are irresponsible statements and he should know better than to use courtroom violence as political ammunition in a debate over the role of the judiciary.

:lol: He's a politician... do you expect any of them, on either side, to by-pass a "grandstanding" opportunity, no matter how tangentally linked it is the issue at hand.

[Red Dog]

:lol: He's a politician... do you expect any of them, on either side, to by-pass a "grandstanding" opportunity, no matter how tangentally linked it is the issue at hand.


No. Still pisses me off though.

[classicman2]

Let's get rid of this antiquated process of nomination and advise and consent by the Senate on federal judges and do the democratic thing - election by the people.

[wendersfan]

Let's get rid of this antiquated process of nomination and advise and consent by the Senate on federal judges and do the democratic thing - election by the people.Somehow I doubt you're serious, even with the lack of your ubiquitous ;), so I'll let this pass.

[classicman2]

Second thought: A constutional amendment to prohibit judicial review of laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

Can you think of anything more undemocratic than allowing 5 unelected people to over-turn the decision of 535 members of The Congress (elected by the people) & the President of the United States - also elected by the people.

[wendersfan]

Second thought: A constutional amendment to prohibit judicial review of laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

Can you think of anything more undemocratic than allowing 5 unelected people to over-turn the decision of 535 members of The Congress (elected by the people) & the President of the United States - also elected by the people.Why not just have national referenda for every piece of legislation under consideration?

One of the features of our 'democracy', being that we are a multi-cultural, pluralist society where minority rights are as important as majority rule, is that a federal, Presidential system with judicial review is not only appropriate for our country, but possibly essential for its survival.

But why am I telling <i>you</i> this? You could probably teach an intro to American government class as well as half the Poli Sci faculty at Univ. Oklahoma Norman.

[VinVega]

Second thought: A constutional amendment to prohibit judicial review of laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

Can you think of anything more undemocratic than allowing 5 unelected people to over-turn the decision of 535 members of The Congress (elected by the people) & the President of the United States - also elected by the people.
Maybe we could get rid of courts all together. Have people really judged by their peers in a town mob format. We could burn people at the stake right there after they're convicted by the townspeople. I say, bring back the Salem witch trials! :up:

[Red Dog]

I suspect judicial review isn't popular among white, straight Christians. :)

[wendersfan]

I suspect judicial review isn't popular among white, straight Christians. :):wave:

It's fine with me. The way things are going, one day I'll be in the minority. :)

[classicman2]

Where is judicial review in the Constitution?

Why not just have national referenda for every piece of legislation under consideration?

Because we have a representative democracy. I didn't say a pure democracy. I'll settle for representative.

Maybe we could get rid of courts all together. Have people really judged by their peers in a town mob format. We could burn people at the stake right there after they're convicted by the townspeople. I say, bring back the Salem witch trials!

And that has just what to do with judicial review?

[JasonF]

Second thought: A constutional amendment to prohibit judicial review of laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

What do you propose should happen if Congress were to pass a law (and the President to sign that law) which violates one of the provisions of the Constitution?

[Red Dog]

Where is judicial review in the Constitution?



So you're a textualist today, are ya? I suppose tomorrow you will be a living Constitution believer arguing social security and Friday you will be an originalist arguing that some public school be allowed to force kids to take communion or something like that. :lol:

Art III Sec 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party

Seems to me that this gives the Court the power to review a case where a citizen sues the US for violating a constitutional right found in the Constitution.

[Red Dog]

What do you propose should happen if Congress were to pass a law (and the President to sign that law) which violates one of the provisions of the Constitution?


Vote the bastards out, of course!!!! Of course, if you are a white straight Christian, you'll likely get your way almost all the time. ;)

Needless to say, without judicial review, there would be absolutely no point in having a Constitution, particularly a Bill of Rights.

[JasonF]

Vote the bastards out, of course!!!!

Even that wouldn't solve the problem, since you'd have to assume that the bastards you vote into office would then pass a new law overturning the original, unconstitutional law.

[classicman2]

Needless to say, without judicial review, there would be absolutely no point in having a Constitution, particularly a Bill of Rights.

Nonsense!

Judcial review is an assumed power. John Marshall wanted to greatly increase the power of the judiciary. To accomplish that grab for power he turned to the writings of his fellow Federalist, Alexander Hamilton.

The ever changing Red Dog has become a Hamiltonian. :)

[Red Dog]

Nonsense!

Judcial review is an assumed power. John Marshall wanted to greatly increase the power of the judiciary. To accomplish that grab for power he turned to the writings of his fellow Federalist, Alexander Hamilton.

The ever changing Red Dog has become a Hamiltonian. :)


I gave you the provision which you conveniently ignored (even though you asked for it) much like many things I post about regarding constitutional law. Nothing new from you.

Plus you didn't answer JasonF's question. What a convenient style of debate you exhibit. :lol:

[Red Dog]

All those who are against judicial review yet at the same time want 9 lawyers in robes define and determine what a certain word in the 14th amendment means, please raise your hypocritical hand.

[wendersfan]

The ever changing Red Dog has become a Hamiltonian. :)Such an insult! It's pistols at dawn, I fear. :lol:

[Red Dog]

Such an insult! It's pistols at dawn, I fear. :lol:


Nah - I fear a dueling style that mirrors his debating style - the dodge and weave. ;)

[classicman2]

I gave you the provision which you conveniently ignored (even though you asked for it) much like many things I post about regarding constitutional law. Nothing new from you.

Plus you didn't answer JasonF's question. What a convenient style of debate you exhibit. :lol:

That provision doesn't give the courts the right to declare an act of congress unconstitutional, and you know it. It's an assumed power - not specifically a power given to the court by the Constitution.

I thought it was obivious - Congress & the President decide whether a law is constitutional. Who do you believe decided it before 1804?

[Red Dog]

That provision doesn't give the courts the right to declare an act of congress unconstitutional, and you know it. It's an assumed power - not specifically a power given to the court by the Constitution.

I thought it was obivious - Congress & the President decide whether a law is constitutional. Who do you believe decided it before 1804?


I don't care who decided what before 1804. That is irrelavent to me. I don't need Marbury v Madison to decide that judicial review is constitutional.

I'm a textualist. I look at the Constitution. I see a provision that gives the judiciary the power to decide cases and controversies btwn a citizen and the US government (of which the Congress and President is a part).

[classicman2]

suppose tomorrow you will be a living Constitution believer arguing social security and Friday you will be an originalist.

The Constitution gives the Congress the broad power to tax. That includes Social Security.

I believe in the 1937 decision justice Cardoza even cited the 'promote the general welfare' in the preamble.

[Red Dog]

Hypothetical...

THE LAND DEPRIVATION ACT:
Congress declares by law (and the President agrees) that all land and property owned by individuals that live in Oklahoma who frequently troll on Internet fora is now property of the US government.

This obviously would violate the 5th amendment.

Can a person who loses his land successfully sue the US government if the judiciary lacks the power of judicial review? Seems to me, without judicial review, he would be SOL.

[Red Dog]

The Constitution gives the Congress the broad power to tax. That includes Social Security.

I believe in the 1937 decision justice Cardoza even cited the 'promote the general welfare' in the preamble.


rotfl rotfl rotfl

Name a single case where the general welfare clause has been cited as the lone constitutional justification to okay an act of Congress.

Here's a hint - there ain't one. You need something else.

[Bandoman]

Nonsense!

Judcial review is an assumed power. John Marshall wanted to greatly increase the power of the judiciary. To accomplish that grab for power he turned to the writings of his fellow Federalist, Alexander Hamilton.

John Marshall - the original activist judge. ;)

[dick_grayson]

Well, I believe there's some legal precedent.

Winchell versus Mahoney, The Charley McCarthy hearings

[Duran]

I thought it was obivious - Congress & the President decide whether a law is constitutional. Who do you believe decided it before 1804?

Which means all of the minority rights in the Bill of Rights exist at the whim of a simple majority. Kind of defeats the purpose.

[kvrdave]

:lol: At least there is no bias in the press. Sounds like they needed to make a story with this one.

[sfsdfd]

So you're a textualist today, are ya?
:D I've followed the neverending duel between you and <b>c-man</b> over this issue with sustained bemusement. I may even dip my toes into this whirlpool when I have more time (summer.)

- David Stein

[wendersfan]

:D I've followed the neverending duel between you and <b>c-man</b> over this issue with sustained bemusement. I may even dip my toes into this whirlpool when I have more time (summer.)So, basically you're the summer replacement series for <i>The Red Dog and classicman2 Show</i>? Weird.

[Ranger]

The Constitution gives the Congress the broad power to tax. That includes Social Security.

Congress also has the power to regulate commerce. Congress has abused the commerce clause often. Sometimes the court catches those abuses and sometimes they don't.

Hypothetical...

THE LAND DEPRIVATION ACT:
Congress declares by law (and the President agrees) that all land and property owned by individuals that live in Oklahoma who frequently troll on Internet fora is now property of the US government.

This obviously would violate the 5th amendment.

Can a person who loses his land successfully sue the US government if the judiciary lacks the power of judicial review? Seems to me, without judicial review, he would be SOL.
This sounds a bit similar to the Homestead Act or the Youngstown Sheet and Steel Co. v. United States case. :)

[classicman2]

rotfl rotfl rotfl

Name a single case where the general welfare clause has been cited as the lone constitutional justification to okay an act of Congress.

Here's a hint - there ain't one. You need something else.

Helvering vs. Davis (1937)

Cardozo’s first three pages describe Social Security’s tax and benefit titles, following the brief almost verbatim. About a page and a half describe Davis’s suit and its treatment. Another page gives Cardozo’s view that the Court should dismiss the case and reports that most of the Justices disagreed. The opinion’s arguments are mostly in five pages maintaining that Title II’s benefit scheme does not conflict with the Tenth Amendment. There are about two pages of actual argument, that Congress may spend money to promote the general welfare; that what the general welfare is changes with the times, and that the Depression had made old-age poverty a national problem; that Congress didn’t arbitrarily decide that old-age benefits would promote the general welfare, but drew on documents and hearings; that the wisdom of old-age benefits is for Congress to decide, not the Court; and that the concept of general welfare is for Congress to decide, not the states. The first two of these, occupying about three-quarters of a page, use language resembling the brief’s. Altogether, of twelve pages, there are almost nine of description, six of them essentially lifted from the brief; about a page on miscellany; and roughly two pages of constitutional argument, of which about three-quarters of a page is largely from the brief.

[Red Dog]

Helvering vs. Davis (1937)

Cardozo’s first three pages describe Social Security’s tax and benefit titles, following the brief almost verbatim. About a page and a half describe Davis’s suit and its treatment. Another page gives Cardozo’s view that the Court should dismiss the case and reports that most of the Justices disagreed. The opinion’s arguments are mostly in five pages maintaining that Title II’s benefit scheme does not conflict with the Tenth Amendment. There are about two pages of actual argument, that Congress may spend money to promote the general welfare; that what the general welfare is changes with the times, and that the Depression had made old-age poverty a national problem; that Congress didn’t arbitrarily decide that old-age benefits would promote the general welfare, but drew on documents and hearings; that the wisdom of old-age benefits is for Congress to decide, not the Court; and that the concept of general welfare is for Congress to decide, not the states. The first two of these, occupying about three-quarters of a page, use language resembling the brief’s. Altogether, of twelve pages, there are almost nine of description, six of them essentially lifted from the brief; about a page on miscellany; and roughly two pages of constitutional argument, of which about three-quarters of a page is largely from the brief.

The justifications here are the general welfare clause AND the taxing/spending power of Congress. In reality, the power to spend for the general welfare is merely a subset of the taxing and spending power of Congress; it is not an independent power but a qualification of the taxing power. That's your law school answer. :)

Of course I agree with Justices McREYNOLDS and BUTLER in that case. That the Act is 'repugnant to the 10th amendment. '


Congress also has the power to regulate commerce. Congress has abused the commerce clause often. Sometimes the court catches those abuses and sometimes they don't.

Sometimes they catch them? I would say extremely rarely ever since FDR was able to shape the Court with people who would validate his New Deal bullshit.

[Ranger]

I haven't taken count, so I thought it was safe to say 'sometimes' but I think the Heart of Atlanta Motel case is a good example. Also, there's the US v. Morrison case about the VAWA of 1994.. now I know it was struck down, but the vote was 5-4 (which is pretty close).
edit: whoops, misread the post. Yeah, a lot has gotten past them. Stupid Congress for overstepping its bounds so many times. :)

[Red Dog]

I haven't taken count, so I thought it was safe to say 'sometimes' but I think the Heart of Atlanta Motel case is a good example. Also, there's the US v. Morrison case about the VAWA of 1994.. now I know it was struck down, but the vote was 5-4 (which is pretty close).
edit: whoops, misread the post. Yeah, a lot has gotten past them. Stupid Congress for overstepping its bounds so many times. :)


Yeah - it isn't quite 0%. The best example of the Court shooting down a commerce clause justification that I can think of is Lopez.

[Ranger]

Right! The 1990 Gun-free School Zone Act.

[JasonF]

Yeah - it isn't quite 0%. The best example of the Court shooting down a commerce clause justification that I can think of is Lopez.

There's also the VAWA case that Ranger mentioned (Morrison) and the RFRA case (Boerne). And the medical marijuana case they're hearing this term might lead to a majority coalition of states-rightsers and pro-patient liberals.

[Red Dog]

And the medical marijuana case they're hearing this term might lead to a majority coalition of states-rightsers and pro-patient liberals.

There should be some opinions handed down on 4/19. I'm hoping that Raich and the wine state-importation cases (Swedenburg, etc. - also commerce clause) are among them.

[dick_grayson]

There should be some opinions handed down on 4/19. I'm hoping that Raich is one of them.


well, that better not ruin 4/20 for me ;)

[Ring Leader]

Which means all of the minority rights in the Bill of Rights exist at the whim of a simple majority. Kind of defeats the purpose.

I disagree!

[classicman2]

...if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties to personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln

[sherm42]

Wasn't Lincoln just pissed off about the Dred Scott opinion when he said that?

[sfsdfd]

...if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties to personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Doesn't this view render the judiciary completely trivial? Are they just a mechanical functionary, like a souped-up version of The People's Court, without the power to do anything but settle disputes? That sounds more like the role of a minor agency - the EPA, let's say - than an actual branch of the government.

This bit of demogoguery ignores the fact that the Supreme Court is bound by the laws. Any frustration over the Supreme Court's activities stems from a misunderstanding of (or attempt to circumvent) the system. Congress could have passed a Terri Schiavo constitutional amendment to force their hand. (And the absurdity of that statement belies the absurdity of Congress's involvement in that affair.)

- David Stein

[sherm42]

Congress could have passed a Terri Schiavo constitutional amendment to force their hand. (And the absurdity of that statement belies the absurdity of Congress's involvement in that affair.)

- David Stein

They would also need 3/4 of the states to agree. What a strange thing that would be. Congress and 3/4 of the states infringing upon the autonomy of one state's decision about one person's desire to not be kept alive in a persistant vegitative state.

[muggins]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4941479,00.html


Ecuador President Dissolves Supreme Court
Saturday April 16, 2005 9:46 AM

By MONTE HAYES
Associated Press Writer

QUITO, Ecuador (AP) - President Lucia Gutierrez declared a state of emergency in the capital city of this Andean Mountain country and dissolved a Supreme Court he and his allies had appointed last winter, saying the unpopular judges were the cause of three days of pot-banging street protests in Quito.

Although they had opposed the court that was stacked by Gutierrez, his political foes immediately labeled its summary dissolution an act of a dictator.

Speaking in a televised address to the nation Friday night with his military high command standing behind him, Gutierrez said he was using the powers granted him by the constitution to dismiss the justices. In explaining their dismissal, he said opposition to their appointments was causing the protests.

``The measure ... was taken because congress until now has not resolved the matter of the current Supreme Court, which is generating national commotion,'' he said.

The state of emergency placed the military in charge of public order and suspended individual rights, including the right to free expression and public assembly.

Early Saturday morning, the military command went on television to give its implicit support to Gutierrez. Adm. Victor Hug Rosier, head of the armed forces, said the only purpose of the state of emergency was ``to recover the order, peace and tranquility lost during the last days.''

Despite the restriction on public meetings, thousands of residents poured into Quito's streets Friday to protest the measures, shouting that Gutierrez, a former army colonel before his election in 2002, was a dictator.

``I want him to go and the congress, too. All the politicians have shown themselves to be corrupt,'' said Gorge Moor, 43, a civil engineer, accompanied by his 9-year-old daughter, who was waving a small yellow, blue and red Ecuadorean flag.

Quito Mayor Paco Moncayo, a retired army general and a leader of the opposition Democratic Left party, criticized the military command for supporting Gutierrez's actions. ``The president can't dissolve the court. We are living in a dictatorship and this decree unmasks the dictatorship,'' he said. ``We are calling for civil disobedience.''

Street protests began Wednesday in response to an impromptu suggestion of a local radio station that residents of Quito form a nocturnal pot-banging caravan. They increased in numbers until at least 10,000 people - banging pots and sticks and shouting ``Get out, Lucio!'' - were marching in the streets as Gutierrez made his announcement Friday.

The court crisis was set in motion in November when the former justices sided with opposition politicians in a failed effort to impeach Gutierrez on corruption charges. Gutierrez then assembled a bloc of 52 lawmakers in the 100-seat unicameral congress, which voted in December to remove the judges. Legal experts said the vote ran contrary to Ecuador's constitution.

Opponents say Gutierrez cut a deal with former President Abdala Bucaram to stack the Supreme Court and clear Bucaram of corruption charges as payback for key votes Bucaram's political party provided last year blocking the impeachment drive against Gutierrez in congress.

The court cleared Bucaram of the charges and he returned to Ecuador earlier this month after eight years in exile.

In a bid to ease the political backlash, in late March Gutierrez proposed a judicial reform that would replace the new court and establish new methods for selecting judges. The legislature has not acted on the proposal.

Gutierrez was elected president in November 2002 after campaigning as a populist, anti-corruption reformer. But his left-leaning constituency soon fell apart after he instituted austerity measures, including cutting subsidies on food and cooking fuel, to satisfy lenders like the International Monetary Fund.