Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breyer: Attacks Threaten Court Independence
NewsMax ^ | 8/9/05 | AP

Posted on 08/09/2005 6:17:00 PM PDT by wagglebee

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, 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aba; brayinbreyer; deathpenalty; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; scotus; stephenbreyer; transjudicialism
Someone needs to remind Breyer that the purpose of the courts is to interpret the law, not make new ones!
1 posted on 08/09/2005 6:17:00 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Breyer: Attacks Threaten Court Independence


The same can be turned around and said about the court and our freedoms as judges look to the international mood of courts..

Court Threatens Independence


2 posted on 08/09/2005 6:18:47 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Someone ought to ask Breyer if he's ever heard of the three COMPETING branches of government. When one abuses its power, then it is subject to checks and balances. If he wants the courts to remain independent, then they should stop abusing their power.


3 posted on 08/09/2005 6:20:11 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Breyer is going senile anyway.
4 posted on 08/09/2005 6:23:15 PM PDT by xcamel (Deep Red, stuck in a "bleu" state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

You said it... it's the "checks and balances," stupid.


5 posted on 08/09/2005 6:23:33 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Methinks these Justices are getting mighty thin-skinned for a very select group of people that can change to course of millions of people's lives by the swipe of a pen in their hands...

Testy, testy---and I don't like it!

and I don't like the resolution that they passed --- not that I think that violence should befall any judge...but they should not "demand" that elected officials defend and protect them from their own bad judgements...


6 posted on 08/09/2005 6:23:53 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Free Republic is #1!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Too late. He has his mind made up.


7 posted on 08/09/2005 6:23:57 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Oh phooey.


8 posted on 08/09/2005 6:24:47 PM PDT by Bahbah (Air America: kids-for-kilowatts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Breyer is a traitorourous pervert and an
arrogant tyrant. just like Ginsburg, Souter,
& Kennedy.

These filthy betrayers are out to destruct
our society, and all moral basises, that are the
fabric of our civilisation and it's ability to
survive, with their perverted and assininely
idiotic 'death culture' rulings.


9 posted on 08/09/2005 6:27:16 PM PDT by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NickatNite2003

Yeah you just cant steal our country any longer without us knowing.


10 posted on 08/09/2005 6:30:30 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Pitchforks and Lanterns..with a smiley face!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Talk about your monomania. Just like the media.


11 posted on 08/09/2005 6:30:31 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Breyer said the nine-member court is focused on constitutional limits on major fights of the day.

What a bunch of crap (See Kelo).

12 posted on 08/09/2005 6:31:14 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Were Breyer's lips moving?


13 posted on 08/09/2005 6:31:50 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If you can't stand the heat, . . . resign and let Bush appoint a replacement.


14 posted on 08/09/2005 6:32:05 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "ROFLOL!" -- tuliptree76)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Those nine people are our employees, nothing more.

Their appointments are only for good behavior. Most are bullies rather than the self-annointed high priests our betters would have us believe.

Most become enemies of our Constitution when they place their opinions over our Law of OUR Land. Millions of us hold them in contempt.

Their own words are their petards.

15 posted on 08/09/2005 6:32:10 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Maybe the SCOTUS should be relocated to Brussels where they can issue their unconstitutional rulings with out worrying about being harassed by the people of the country they are destroying.


16 posted on 08/09/2005 6:33:50 PM PDT by mmercier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

These people just have too darn much power. What are we going to do to get them to realize they work for us, and not the other way around?


17 posted on 08/09/2005 6:34:28 PM PDT by ladyinred (Here come the judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
-Andrew Jackson

The fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers intentionally created the judiciary with less power than the executive or legislative branches. There is no provision in the Constitution for the courts to determine what is and isn't constitutional, the courts seized this power with Marbury v. Madison. Over the past two centuries, they have become more brazen with their power grabs, and with the exception of Andrew Jackson, nobody has ever stood up to them.

We recently had a situation during the Schiavo matter (and how any of us feel about that controversy is irrelevant here) where a judge openly ignored a Congressional subpoena, and Congress did nothing. In my opinion, there have been many instances where Congress and/or the President should have chosen to ignore a court ruling they felt was unlawful, yet they never do. Until the other branches of government decide to reassert their authority, the judiciary will continue it's tyranny.

18 posted on 08/09/2005 6:36:24 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Attacks Threaten Court Independence

Hey, whatever works.
19 posted on 08/09/2005 6:37:13 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If the Court would stick to interpreting law rather than making it there would be fewer attacks, rather than pretending to hold legislative powers.


20 posted on 08/09/2005 6:39:15 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have kind of a different view about Marbury. I think it was good law when it was written.

You've got to have a way to decide constitutional issues, and it makes sense to put that power in the least powerful branch of government. Unfortunately, the problem is that Marbury has been abused. It's the responsibility of the President and Congress to put the judiciary back in its intended roll. But that is happening very slowly, and I believe that it may be too late already to fix the damage that they've inflicted on this Nation.

The problem is that the President and the Congress are complicit with this abuse.


21 posted on 08/09/2005 6:43:13 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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

It's amazing that Breyer isn't embarassed to admit his ignorance about the proper role of courts in the republic. I urge people to educate judges about the responsibility courts have to limit their action to the interpretation of law, not the formulation of law.

"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect us..."

I agree wholeheartedly. But we need to protect our courts from our power-mongering elitist judges. We need to repeal judicial immunity and pass a law against legislating from the bench.

22 posted on 08/09/2005 6:46:20 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Washington State--Land of Court-approved Voting Fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

His arrogance and the implied arrogance of his fellow jurors is in infuriating.


23 posted on 08/09/2005 6:48:09 PM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa

There isn't independence from the people, only from the other two branches (except for the "checks"). Just like the other branches, the Judicary is to represent and protect the People (through the Constitution).


24 posted on 08/09/2005 6:56:05 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

They just showed a clip of that "speech" that Breyer gave...and you could see old Lindsay Graham in the background...

What is with this guy? What is he doing with these SCOTUS guys...and the GAng of 14....and John McCain....

Graham has got some kind of egomania problem...he has to be in on EVERTHING!!


25 posted on 08/09/2005 6:57:14 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Free Republic is #1!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I'll take your comment as corroboration, since I can't interpret it as disagreement in any way that makes sense.


26 posted on 08/09/2005 7:03:03 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Earth to Breyer, Earth to Breyer:

When the judiciary turns itself into a supreme legislature and at times even executive (think of the school busing cases, among others), using POLITICAL criteria to dominate the other two properly POLITICAL branches of government, the obvious outcome is that the highly POLITICAL behavior of the courts will come under POLITICAL types of criticism..... or evern what you term 'attacks'....

Moral of the story: when the imperial judiciary usurps the proper role of the other two supposedly INDEPENDENT branches, don't be surprised at the criticism which results.... and STOP WHINING, it's your own d-----d fault!


27 posted on 08/09/2005 7:06:22 PM PDT by Enchante (Kerry's mere nuisances: Marine Barracks '83, WTC '93, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombs '98, USS Cole!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa
It more of an agree and extend. There is no independence of the Supreme Court from the People, only from the other two branches. The SCOTUS is shielded, but not independent. The 1st Amendment would seem to allow dissenting speech of the People wrt the SCOTUS as an institution and as individual Justices.Breyer needs to think a little more before he speaks or renders written opinions.
28 posted on 08/09/2005 7:15:25 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification.


29 posted on 08/09/2005 7:17:55 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Of course, my "it's the checks and balances, stupid" was merely advocating the most efficient way to convey the proper constitutional viewpoint in the vernacular that liberals can relate to.


30 posted on 08/09/2005 7:19:43 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
What is with this guy?

His conduct suggests that he is seriously compromised. He allegedly referred to himself as a Republican by day and a Democrat by night. In short, a self-described switch hitter.

As for McCain, always remember that as a sitting senator, he was one of the Keating Five, as longstanding buttboy for Charles Keating, a corrupt S&L bandit. If the Keating Five had all been pubbies, they would have gone to jail, but McInsane was the only pubbie so he got the same wrist slap as the four other Democrat perpetrators, including John Glenn, BTW. The point is, from the beginning of his career in Congress, McCain took big bucks from a crook in return for many improper and unlawful interventions on the crook's behalf, and got away with it. Thus, would a reasonable man bet the ranch that McInsane has been clean ever since? His absolute contempt for the Constitution, repeated disloyalty to the party and endless hobnobbing and cozening with the quisling MSM suggest otherwise.

31 posted on 08/09/2005 7:45:25 PM PDT by Bedford Forrest (Roger, Contact, Judy, Out. Fox One. Splash one.<I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

FLASH Mr Justice: it is the independence that bothers us!


32 posted on 08/09/2005 10:11:47 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The problem with Breyer's position is that he seems to define judicial independence not only as being free from political interference, which I agree with, but to be independent of the Constitution itself as in allowing the Court to do whatever it desires.

The court is also bound completely by the Constitution.


33 posted on 08/10/2005 11:56:52 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Someone needs to remind Breyer that the purpose of the courts is to interpret the law, not make new ones!

Oh, they don't make new laws. They just clarify the many emanations of the different penumbras surrounding the existing laws. </sarcasm>

34 posted on 08/10/2005 11:59:52 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Agree... Breyer has been one of the justices in the forefront of politicizing the role of the court. Now there is a political backlash and he wants to be a victim and claim immunity because the court is "independent"... Guess again, what goes around comes around. You helped make the situation, Stevie, and you can either get a clue, get gone, or stand by for more heavy rolls. Has his property been condemned under the Kelso ruling yet? Inquiring minds want to know...


35 posted on 08/10/2005 12:05:29 PM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson