home

Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges

Chief Justice William Rehnquist gave his annual speech on the state of the judiciary the other day. His message: We need to preserve the independence of our judiciary.

Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said today that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from office.

"The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice, whose future on the court is subject to wide speculation, said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts.

Rehnquist also talked about judicial activism.

in his report, the chief justice did not name names, but instead spoke of his concern for the "mounting criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as 'judicial activism.' "

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), for example, has repeatedly threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers.

"A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence," Rehnquist said. "Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

The Chief Justice also talked about the fiscal crisis facing the courts, and proposed a rather simple solution. It turns out that 20% of the judiciary budget goes for rent on the nation's courthouses - which is set by Congress. All Congress has to do is lower the rent.

The judiciary's appropriation, $5.42 billion, some $300 million below its request, accounts for less than 0.2 percent of the federal budget.

< Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman | New Details About Guantanamo Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ray Radlein on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:23:07 AM EST
    I've never exactly been a fan of Rehnquist, but I've always had to laugh at the thought that he would ever sit idly by and let anyone — even his poilitical soulmates — try to overrule Marbury v. Madison by simple legislation.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:08:00 AM EST
    You know, we, as a country, are in trouble when Rehnquist and liberals start to agree. I wonder if he is thinking of trying to stay on for the duration of this years term in order to avoid a nasty confirmation battle for his replacement.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#3)
    by cp on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 06:37:50 AM EST
    i've always gotten a chuckle out of the term "judicial activists", as if that isn't what judges, by definition, are. point that out to a purported "conservative", who's used it as a pejorative, and they start to sputter. aside from being somewhat messy, it is amusing to watch. unfortunately, since the mass of the population has, apparently, no real clue of what judges are supposed to do, they take that nonsense serially. they also failed basic civics classes in high school, since they are supremely unaware of the fact that the constitution provides for an independent judiciary, for exactly the reasons outlined by justice rehnquist. of course, these are the same people who think the bill of rights is a communist manifesto. oh, just a thought: where, in the constitution, does it require judges to strictly construct it? absent any contemporaneous written record of the deliberations of the constitutional convention, how exactly are they supposed to that?

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:16:12 AM EST
    it seems the supremes forfeited credibility and independence when they selected little boots as prez what back when. rindquest doesnt get to select his replacement. they ducks are all set up in a row. it looks very reactionary and christian. what ever that means.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:30:51 AM EST
    Yep, Rehnquist as the voice of moderation. Another sign of how far down the road to fascism and religious fundamentalism we have gone in the past 4 years.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:07:03 AM EST
    The cabal currently in power are not conservatives, they are robber barons. There is some overlap, but the love between the truest of the two groups may not be that strong. Late in life, Rehnquist probably wants to be aligned and remembered as conservative, but I think he has some robber baron credentials.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    The consolidation of power is probably 60-70% complete. We have the politicization of almost all federal agencies, including those who history has been independence like NIH, FDA, CDC etc. We have an unprecedented power grab by the executive branch. The courts are lagging behind but given the circumstances it should be well on its way in the next 2 years. But this is not a take over by traditional conservatives. I never though I see the day where I would be happy for that. No this is a take over by an informal alliance formed by the far right evangelical dominionists and corporations. So the true conservatives will be suprised when they finally figure out what is going on. meanwhile the spread of religious intolerance and the decline of reason will continue replaced by mandate to institute a certain form of Christianity into our daily lives. Sorry, Catholics, mormons, liberal methodists and such will have to get with the program or be left behind. One should take the time to study the beliefs and the actions of those religious leaders who are tightly coupled to the Bush Presidency

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    I think at some point the electorate wakes up and turns this around. It has even been known to happen in places like the Ukraine. Their Supremes and Court system were involved in the decisions that overturned the rigged election. It's unfortunate for us all that our Supremes went against counting the votes in 2000. However, even some of the most conservative, strict-constructionist judicial types dig in if there are moves afoot to challenge/undermine the power of the courts. They are a sleeping giant as Marbury v. Madison showed. They do occasionally rouse and shake things up. Examples? Brown v. School Board and maybe Roe v. Wade (though in the long run, I don't think that's a landmark decision). Failures to rouse and shake things up? Dredd Scott, among others.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    Can anyone cite any decisions of the Rehnquist court that are going to be important over time? I am not saying they don't exist, just that I can't think what they are at this moment. Important consideration as Rehnquist appears to be worried about his "legacy."

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:34:52 AM EST
    You realize, of course, that the CJ didn't SAY anything. He has a tracheostomy. But despite that bit of medical humor, is anyone concerned about Rhenquist's capacity to make judicial opinions? If this man has an advanced cancer as we have been led to believe, then should we not be told of his mental capacity? It may be diminished by chemotherapy or narcotics. As far as I'm concerned, the SCOTUS right now may be compromised in it's ability to decide the current cases before it.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    I've read that thet CJ was not in court to hear the first few cases, but that he will be back at a later date. Technically, though, unless there is a tie vote, his presence isn't necessary (and who knows, he may be offering opinions behind the scenes anyway and just not voting).

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    I'd agree with Che's idea if we could also apply it to congressmen. Was Strom Thurmond really of sound mind for the last couple of years he served in the Senate? Is Robert Byrd now? Senility and Alzheimer's both have a way of slipping up on their victims unnoticed.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    Is Robert Byrd now? Senility and Alzheimer's both have a way of slipping up on their victims unnoticed. Byrd has made more sense than 99 percent of his profession in the last 2 years. I think you should be more worried about Jim Bunning.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    "But," he added, "criticism of judges and judicial decisions is as old as our republic, an outgrowth to some extent of the tensions built into our three-branch system of government. To a significant degree those tensions are healthy in maintaining a balance of power in our government."

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:55:16 AM EST
    Ernesto, More sense to you maybe. I don't think calling poor white people "niggers" and advocating for yet another building with his name on it is evidence of any serious political acumen. Ruth Bader Ginsberg could probably use some testing as well. But Che is probably on to more than he realizes. We're all coming to see that the faculties decrease with age, especially now that people are living into their 90s. Maybe we need to rethink lifetime appointments.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:41:41 AM EST
    Justpaul: I was talking about this. If those are the ramblings of a senile old man...then we are in desparate need of more senility in D.C., not less.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    Could be a Pandora's box. Just because you disagree with someone's political opinions doesn't necessarily mean they need a psychiatric evaluation, does it? Personally, I think that as an entity by itself, the US is criminally insane.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    Che, There's a difference between sanity and senility. I never questioned the former in Byrd's case and only hinted that the latter might be in question. And no, obviously, the fact that I disagree with the man on many of his positions doesn't mean he needs to be tested. If you like what Byrd is doing, he's stand-up guy, but the same can be said of Dobson, of Ashcroft, and even of De Lay and W. They too have the supporters.

    Re: Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    One final word on this, in case I'm not being clear: If you want to stop Dobson's attempt to threaten your favorite liberal lawmaker, you're going to have to do it at the ballot box, not here (although this may well be a good place to start). He's playing by the same rules as everyone else, and he is entitled to do so. You may not like his message, but there it is.