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

Skip to comments.

The New Juristocracy. The Founders didn't intend for the judiciary to handle national security
WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | Sept. 13, 2006 | ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Posted on 09/14/2006 9:51:03 PM PDT by FairOpinion

National self-preservation: the irreducible core of popular self-determination. It is simply not the business of judges. And once, in a less hubristic time, no one knew that better than the judges themselves. Of presidential power, Holmes wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1909: "When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process" (emphasis added). Justice Robert Jackson--a giant in both the accountable and unaccountable worlds, having served as FDR's attorney general before being named to the Supreme Court and, ultimately, prosecuting the Nazis at Nuremburg--put it emphatically in 1936:

The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry

====

Mr. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This article originally appeared in the September issue of The New Criterion.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; gwot; interrogation; judiciary; mccarthy; nationalsecurity; terrorism; wot
Long, but worth reading -- bottom line: the judiciary has no business legislating from the bench, especially not in cases of national security.

There is plenty of precedence supporting President Bush's actions and policy.

Long article, but it's worth reading and bookmarking.

1 posted on 09/14/2006 9:51:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

BTTT


2 posted on 09/14/2006 10:14:02 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The judiciary was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government, almost totally subservient to Congressional law making. The problem is too many legislators think like lawyers, because they are.


3 posted on 09/14/2006 10:30:29 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Good piece. I was about to give up entirely on McCarthy after his repeated defenses of his friend Patrick Fitzgerald, but he's back on track.


4 posted on 09/14/2006 10:41:47 PM PDT by Defiant (Under Bush the adults are back in charge, but they are your friend's cool parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath

The problem is that now the UNELECTED judiciary is the most powerful and overrides the will of the President, Congress and that of the American people, making decisions based on their perception of "international law", instead of the US Constitution and the interests of the American people.


5 posted on 09/14/2006 10:43:56 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

There is a reason, afer all, that some of us have been referring to them as "black-robed Mullahs" and to the SC as the "Supreme Council of Ayatollahs" for several years now.

Theorectically, the more egregious of their number could be impeached and removed from their thrones if there were anything but eunuchs and geldings sitting in Congress - especially the popularly elected Senate. Of course the ONE time it actually happened in recent history was with HRH the illustrious Alcee Hastings, whose complete corruption was so embrarassing that Congress actually impeached and removed him from the Federal judiciary. In a most fitting irony, he now serves as a member of Congress! Ain't "democracy" grand? In the eternally-peaceful Dar-al-Islam, the electorate routinely elects Mullahs and Imams to enforce the laws of Sharia and Dhimmitude, while here in America, they vote in criminals! Gian Gatti for President! He'd at least be honest about his criminality. We need more honest criminals to run for office! I'm really quite tired of the con-men (and women) who make pretenses of honesty, when they are in reality nothing but criminals.


6 posted on 09/14/2006 11:48:09 PM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski

This is why it's critically important to keep Congress in Republican hands and hoep that President Bush can nominate a couple more sensible judges to the SCOTUS and more to the other Federal courts.


7 posted on 09/14/2006 11:50:10 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

And, even more importantly, to hold Bush and other Republicans' feet to the fire about appointing responsible judges. Roberts - and even more so, Alito - are hopeful signs. Harriet Miers was a complete diaster - Souter in a dress. Bush and the Repub leadership get only minimal credit for Alito therefore. I would give the majority of credit for Alito to all the FR folks and the many others who rebelled against the disgraceful hack Miers.


8 posted on 09/15/2006 12:09:00 AM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I think that President Bush's party would prevent him from being impeached if he'd just tell the judges to take a hike on NSA and prisoners.

He should do so.

This can be settled with firmness, if anyone wishes to settle it.

Having it lingering around Congress or stinking up judges' chambers is not the way to handle it.


9 posted on 09/15/2006 4:58:05 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troo This means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; xzins

Maybe it's time to consider an amendment concerning the scope of the Supreme Court's authority, maybe limiting it to purely domestic matters?


10 posted on 09/22/2006 9:55:48 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Maybe it's time to consider an amendment concerning the scope of the Supreme Court's authority, maybe limiting it to purely domestic matters?"

===

Sounds like you have something there!


11 posted on 09/22/2006 7:31:35 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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