Posted on 02/08/2006 6:15:30 PM PST by new yorker 77
CHICAGO - Stressing that "the role of a judge is to interpret the law and not legislate it," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told University of Chicago Law School students yesterday that they need not fear judicial activism by the current members of the Supreme Court.
"Theres no reason to believe that judges are now more ready to overturn prior precedent," Breyer said while addressing several hundred students inside the universitys Glen A. Lloyd Auditorium.
"All of the present judges basically agree that Congress, not judges, should decide policy," he said.
The 67-year-old Breyer, an alumnus of Harvard Law School, was on campus to speak as the universitys 2006 Ulysses and Marguerite Schwarz Memorial lecturer, an honor held each year by a distinguished lawyer or teacher.
During his hourlong lecture, Breyer took the opportunity to speak about the issue of judicial activism, a hot topic for many Americans in the wake of the recent turnover in the Supreme Court.
Last week, Samuel Alito was sworn in as a justice, four months after John Roberts Jr. was named the courts chief justice. Both men were nominated by President George W. Bush, and some people have expressed concern that Alito and Roberts will shift the court to the right.
But Breyer - who was nominated in 1994 by President Bill Clinton - said yesterday that all the justices know their duty as members of the nations highest court and that each makes his or her decisions based not on politics but on the law.
"If a president appoints a justice and thinks hes going to decide every case the way he wants it decided, he is wrong," Breyer said. "A president cant control individual decisions, and he shouldnt hope to."
Breyer said that justices might not always agree with the laws enacted but that they are still required to interpret those laws objectively.
Copyright © 2006 The Columbia Daily Tribune. All Rights Reserved.
Thus demonstrating his definition of "judicial activism" is not the one commonly used in the real world.
What SHOULD disqualify him as a judge is his statement a couple of days ago about how the court makes laws, and his statement that he prefers to consider consequences of a decision rather than the plain text and historical context of the constitution and the law in question.
Who cares if you called him an f'in idiot? Breyer IS an f'in idiot. It does not reflect bad upon you at all.
Not to mention his reliance on foreign law.
Great. Give up your house for the Lost Freedom Hotel!
"Justice Breyer says Judicial activism not problem"
Rain in Texas is not a problem either if you're in California.
"Who cares if you called him an f'in idiot? Breyer IS an f'in idiot. It does not reflect bad upon you at all."
Thanks for the props. I had Judeas 23 1/2 pegged pretty well. I have been chastized about some rather coarse language before but doubt f'in would incur the wrath of the one I hold in high esteme, Mr. R!
Jude baby is just that. A smarmy high and mighty lib elitist.
Here's an analogy:
You're building a picket fence, and you measure the first picket and cut it. Then you lay the first picket on top of the board, draw a line on the board at the top of the first picket, and cut the second picket. You then lay the second picket on top of the next board and use it to measure and cut the third picket. And so on.
What's your picket fence look like by the time you finish it?
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.