Did you know that six of the eight GOP presidential candidates would like to impose term limits on lifetime appointed judges, overrule Supreme Court rulings through Congressional vote or deny financing to courts whose rulings they disagree with? Welcome to 21st century judicial activism, Republican style.
EdgeWashington.com gives us a rundown of what each candidate wants to do with the judicial branch:
– Newt Gingrich would summon judges before Congress to explain their decisions, impeach judges over their rulings, and deny funding to the ninth circuit federal court.
– Rick Perry has called for an end to lifetime tenure for federal judges and referred to the high court as “nine oligarchs in robes.”
– Michelle Bachmann said Congress should prevent the courts from getting involved in the fight over same-sex marriage, among other high-profile social issues.
– Ron Paul has advocated a bill that would impeach any judge who oversteps their congressionally-defined jurisdictions. He also would allow voters to oust judges.
– Herman Cain wants legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade.
– Rick Santorum has pledged to sign into law a bill abolishing the appeals court.
EdgeWashington.com points out that over the last 20 years Republicans have seated 437 judges compared to the Democrats’ 352. New York University law professor Barry Friedman also comments that taking federal courts out of the picture would increase the influence of more liberal-leaning state courts, a weird stance to take now that Republicans have the “the most conservative Supreme Court in many, many years.” He called the candidate’s threats nothing more than red meat thrown to the conservative base.
Red meat or not, such positions serve to poison the American public against the judicial branch. But while some observers worry about “politicizing the judicial branch”, aren’t all court appointments and decisions already politicized? Hmmm….
Once again, the Tea Party and GOP prove that they hate the Constitution and America.
Oh, and here is a thought. if they want to impose term limits on the court then limits need to be put on Congress as well.
Oh dear, how ever will we deny homosexuals equal rights with judges interpreting the constitution correctly?
This is ridiculous
Actually, legislator’s favorite stunt is called “jurisdiction stripping,” where they attempt to immunize their acts from judicial review. On the presumption that the Constitution makes the legislative, executive and judicial branches co-equal, I’m not sure how one branch can simply define-away the powers of another branch. But they do.
Ultimately, attacking the judiciary is a mere twist on the superficial excuse of “let’s everybody blame the lawyers.” Yet every substantial problem in America can be tracked back to legislators. Not judges specifically, or lawyers generally.
Legislators. They’re the ones who make the majority of policy and laws, and they’re the ones who appropriate and spend. They’re the ones who know no bounds.
Legislators are the real problem with America.
But like most talented con artists, their true skill is the art of distraction.
Having been through the courts sytem and seeing others go through it I have seen first hand the coruption of the judiciary.
My own father paid a very large sum to a federal judge to have a case dismissed.
Our judges are corupt and in the pocket of the highest bider.
Anything done to put the smack down on the judiciary at this point will be good.
Ewoks R Us
I find it ironic there is a Ron Paul 2012 ad on the side of this page.
Most of what they stated is really extreme and against the nature of the Constitution. Almost all of them want some sort of system to discredit judicial rulings or remove judges that would be against them. I find Bachmann’s the most humorous. She knows the courts are likely our biggest ally and wants to keep them out of the fight. Sorry, but when the Constitution says people should get equal protection, no matter what your Bible says, laws prohibiting marriage equality are unconstitutional.
The only one agree with is Perry surprisingly. Life terms just seem undemocratic. I’m not saying we should be able to vote in or out judges on a whim, because that would just lead to mob rule and a politicizing of the judicial branch, but with America and the world changing as rapidly as it is I think it is important to keep judges relevant to the massive amount of changes occurring. I don’t think there should be a term limit though. Judges performing their duties as they are supposed to should be able to be reappointed indefinitely. I think judges should have much longer terms than congressmen or the President, at least 10 years I’d say, but I do think it is important to make sure judges don’t “expire”.
Assuming your father did bribe a judge, I’m not sure why your father has no guilt to share with the corrupt judge?
Didn’t Republicans recently sing the praises of Constitutional limitations on government power? Now they want to gut the only effective enforcement mechanism for those limitations.
hmm wonder what would have happened in the civil rights movement if those ideas were inforced? We would still have jim crow laws, interracial marriages would be illegal, etc.
No. 7 · Doctor Whom wrote, “Didn’t Republicans recently sing the praises of Constitutional limitations on government power?” They like to go on about the importance of “original intent” at the same time that they want to amend the constitution to suit their ideology. What a bunch of hypocrites!
My father was a crook.
I do not deny that at all.
Have you seen to it that your crook father got the “smack down” you wish for the judiciary as a whole?
Comments are closed.