Judicial independence remains under fire

[Judi Lynn]

Nov. 11, 2006, 12:06AM
Judicial independence remains under fire

By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Efforts to curb judges' independence suffered some Election Day setbacks, but supporters pledged to keep fighting against a judiciary they say has lost touch with America.

The problem, critics say, is that judges too often make laws rather than interpret them. On Tuesday's ballots, the possible solutions ranged from term limits to prison time. All failed, most by wide margins.

Judges say such efforts threaten their autonomy and some legal scholars see them as part of an organized campaign to persuade voters that judges, like legislators, governors and presidents, are policymakers who need political oversight.

The frontier of the movement was South Dakota, where voters considered allowing judges to face lawsuits or jail time for their opinions.

"People are not going to allow judges to take over this county," said Ron Branson, who conceived the South Dakota measure and is promoting it nationwide. "They talk about judicial independence but they're getting involved in things they have no power to order."
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4327389.html

[thepurpose]

1. These type of people are a real threat to our country.

[ck4829]

2. Here's some more

Nine out of 10 voters rejected the idea but Branson predicted it would take hold in one of several states with active chapters in the "Jail4Judges" campaign.

In Montana, three Republican legislators backed a proposal that would have allowed judges to face recall for any reason. The measure was voted upon but the results weren't counted because judges found fraud and deception in the petition drive. Supporters of the measure said it was just another arbitrary ruling by the courts.

[alarimer]

3. these are blatantly unconstitutional

How can you jail a judge who has been elected or appointed for their OPINION? We have a hierarchical court system in which the higher courts determine the legality of lower court rulings. Isn't that enough of a safeguard?

These fundamentalist right-wing nutcases are RUINING this country.

[iamjoy]

4. Death Threats, Being Kicked Out of Church

That's what happened to George Greer, the judge in the Terri Schaivo case.

Now, here was a man who was (from what I understand) a devout Christian. But he was a judge. He did not "decide" to remove Terri's feeding tube, although admittedly, when he ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo that was the end result. But he was making a ruling in what was essentially a family law case. A case with obvious life or death consequences (if you considered Terri alive), but a family law case nonetheless.

I don't know Greer, I don't know his feelings on it. But I wonder if he was tormented by conflict - his faith commanding him to protect life and the the laws of Florida he swore to uphold requiring him to take an action that would lead to a woman's "premature" death.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems Judge Greer made a decision based on a strict interpretation (if you will) of Florida's laws. It seems that if Judge Greer had ruled in favor of the Schindlers (Terri's parents) he would have been practicing "judicial activism" by letting his faith and a desired outcome guide his ruling. Again, I'm making an assumption that he personally wanted Terri to live because of his faith.

For that, he was asked to leave the Calvary Baptist Church.

The way I understand it, the Christian community thinks Greer should have ignored the laws of Florida and followed his faith. No judge should be under threat from any group for a ruling he/she makes. In general we the citizens do not understand the laws, we only know what is in our hearts. Based on our feelings we have a desired outcome, but that is not always in agreement with the law.

I'm sure there are many examples of judicial rulings that were unpopular, but legally sound. We cannot have mob rule where jurists would have to worry about impeachment or lawsuits for such decisions.

[alarimer]

7. If the judiciary is not independent, we are screwed

The "authoritarian right" as John Dean puts it, has a power totally disproportionate to their numbers. When Pat Robertson gets to vet judicial appointments we are in serious trouble.

[flyarm]

8. JUDGE GREER IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGE..always has been...

i live in that neck of the woods...and yes he did get threats ..awful ..but understand..it si also the headquarters of Scientology!!

Judge Greer..although conservative..is an honest Judge ..in "my " opinion.

fly

[Toots]

5. I like judgement better than opinion but basically the same thing

:shrug; These are the same people that don't know the difference between scientific theory and common usage of theory on the street..There is a word for these types....ignorance..

[alarimer]

6. I only meant opinion in the legal sense

Not in the sense most people use it.

In any case, they complain about "judicial activism" when it goes against their beliefs. The extreme right does not understand that in most cases judgments are made based on precedent, sometimes years and years of it. Judges by large do not get up one day and decide they need to piss off the right (or the left as the case may be). But Bush's appointments to the lower federal courts have been made on an ideological basis, not on sound legal principles. It is becoming increasingly politicized (maybe it has always been that way a little) in a way that is not healthy for our system.

[Igel]

9. Having such ballot measures is just the next step after

protesters picket a courthouse for a verdict.

The law is based in democratic principles ... when it's in the legislature.

When it's in the courthouse, it's based on the text of the law as interpreted by word usage and English grammar at the time of its writing and by the intent of those who made it law, as conditioned by case law then and since then. Not by what a group of people protesting in the street want, nor by threats of civil suits.

Term limits, however, I could live with, esp. in states where judges are not elected but are appointed for life.