DeLay criticizes Supreme Court Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
He went up a couple of points in my view with these comments - especially the last paragraph of this report. It's about time!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/20/delay.judges.ap/index.html

DeLay criticizes Supreme Court Justice
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 Posted: 8:56 AM EDT (1256 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench has been outrageous, his latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks following the courts' refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death.

DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.

The No. 2 Republican in the House has been openly critical of the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.

DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to review her case. They declined to intervene.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.

He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way. (Full story)

Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," he said.

One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
 
What he said may not have been politically correct, but it was something that needed to be said, and an open discussion or debate on the points he brought up would be a good thing. The Supreme Court would like to think that they were above anything like that. They shouldn't be.

It is also part of the reason the Democrats will do almost anything to get rid of him.
 
DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.

Funny, it used to be a term that judges applied to themselves back in the 60's and 70's when they began to adopt the view that the US Constitution should be interperted so as to acheive certain progressive social ends.

Activists like Kennedy and Ginzberg will be the death of our Constitution.

"We have our own intellect" they say, and "We don't need to be restrained by those of the 18th Century..."

These people never quite get around to explaining how they assume the extra-Constitutional power to legislate from the bench.

I guess if you're going to ignore the Constitution you might as wll go whole hog.

The best decisions regarding civil rights have always stemmed from a strict constructionist interpertation of the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education is an example. The worst always seem to stem from an activist view. The patently racially discriminatory affirmative action programs found constitutional are good examples of the activist philosophy.
 
Last edited:
What he said needed saying. I wish more congress members would exercise their cojones. :)
 
He went up a couple of points in my view with these comments - especially the last paragraph of this report. It's about time!

I was talking with Matt about the 'good behavior' clause just the other day. One thing that struck me was that no separate mechanism is expressly delineated in the Constitution for removal of a judge upon failure of being good.
This leads me, legally uneducated, to believe that the Framers meant for a failure of good behavior to be another reason for impeachment. Then you're back to getting the vote in the House and a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate. The reason that I believe this is that the Framers made very important actions difficult to achieve for good reason.

If any of you guys have faith in Congress coming up with a wise test for good behavior...you have more faith...than I. I personally don't trust them to pour urine out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. If I had a choice between having to choose between the Supreme Court and Congress...I'd go with the Supreme Court.

It's not just what Congress had done...it's what they've tried to do. Go back over the last ten years or so. Look at some of the failed bills. Not to mention the failed amendment proposals. There are some serious wackos in Congress.
 
Of course, his desire to get the federal courts involved in the Schiavo trial is about as activist as you can get... :barf:
 
"Of course, his desire to get the federal courts involved in the Schiavo trial is about as activist as you can get... "

Her civil rights under the constitution were violated by the Judge in the State court. The federal courts should have gotten involved, however they maintained solidarity with the state courts and refused to criticize the rather extreme abuses of authority by the state Judge.

It's congress' role to establish the judicial sturcture. They were acting within their constitutional capacity. Activist judges are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.