Rehnquist Defends 'Activist Judges'

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/010105judges.htm

In a year-end report Chief Justice William Rehnquist is defending the lifetime appointment of judges saying it is necessary to insulate them from political pressures.

Rehnquist said that there has been "mounting criticism" recently of judges accused of interpreting the law to fit their politics.

President Bush and Republican congressional leaders have been particularly outspoken about so-called activist judges, especially those in gay marriage cases.

[TaleWgnDg]

1. Yup, Rehnquist says what has to be said . . . and he's correct . . .

________________________________________________

"Saturday, January 1, 2004
Rehnquist Defends Judicial Independence in Year-End Report
by Bernard Hibbitts at 1:44 PM

"(JURIST) In a year-end report on the federal judiciary issued Saturday (January 1, 2005) Chief Justice William Rehnquist, still recovering at home from cancer treatment that has kept him off the bench since November, emphasized the need to protect judges from political pressure and threats, citing calls from some conservative groups in partiuclar to impeach judges for judicial 'activism':

" 'By guaranteeing judges life tenure during
good behavior, the Constitution tries to
insulate judges from the public pressures
that may affect elected officials. 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. Nevertheless, our government,
in James Madison's words, ultimately derives
"all powers directly or indirectly from
the great body of the people." Thus, public
reaction to judicial decisions, if it is
sustained and widespread, can be a factor
in the electoral process and lead to the
appointment of judges who might decide
cases differently. . . .'

" 'Although arguments over the federal
Judiciary have always been with us, criticism
of judges, including charges of activism,
have in the eyes of some taken a new turn
in recent years. . . . At the same time,
there have been suggestions to impeach
federal judges who issue decisions regarded
by some as out of the mainstream. And there
were several bills introduced in the last
Congress that would limit the jurisdiction
of the federal courts to decide constitutional
challenges to certain kinds of government
action. . . .'

"The 2005 report also discussed the federal judiciary's ongoing budget crisis and the courts caseload.

DC Supreme Court litigation firm Goldstein & Howe has posted a copy of Chief Justice Rehnquist's report here (http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/rehnquist.2004.pdf ).

The Los Angeles Times has more (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2973098 )."

(italicized and bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/01/rehnquist-defends-judicial.php
________________________________________________


edited to add a quote from Rehnquist's Report that was not within the jurist.law.pitt.edu article (above) . . .

"A judge's 'judicial' acts ("activism")
may not serve as a basis for impeachment.
Any other rule would destroy judicial
independence. 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." - William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his 2004
year-end report on the federal courts,
January 1, 2005. (bold-faced type emphasis
added by TaleWgnDg)

.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Rhetoric. and delusion.

Another hypocrite.

[Mist]

3. Or is it possible he has a tiny bit of conscience?

His recent experience w/the big C has concentrated his attention on his mortality, and how he'll be remembered. Maybe he knows he's been a big ho and is regretting it?

[knight_of_the_star]

4. Maybe he's a real conservative

I think he was first appointed by Nixon then was elevated by Ray-gun. That and he is probably regretting what he did in Bush v Gore.

[gratuitous]

6. Uh huh

That's why he joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, which by its own terms was not to be used as judicial precedent, a wholly unheard-of doctrine in American jurisprudence.

Methinks Mr. Renchler is feeling the heavy breath of death on his collar, and he's worried about his eternal reward. My advice to him is to think hot.

[aquart]

5. Rehnquist worried about meeting his Maker?