amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Charlie Rose, Supreme Court Justices, an Independent Judiciary
In an amazing and rather unusual event, two Justices, former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Conner and current Associate Justice, Stephen Breyer were interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS to a nationwide audience.
I was spellbound by the interview, to the point of not leaving the interview for the duration for fear of missing a single word, yes, that compelling. I only hope I can do justice in relaying what I heard and saw.
For those who don’t know, it is very unusual for Supreme Court Justices to submit to media interviews, it happens only rarely.
It took nearly the entire program before I realized why these two Justices had agreed to speak publicly, usually, if they speak at all it is at a law school forum that is closed to the media.
Apparently there is legislation in Congress to limit the scope of cases the Supreme Court can hear and legislation at the state level to penalize judges who litigate in an ‘active’ sense, beyond constitutional limits set by custom and tradition.
Both Justices railed at public and media accusations that judges have become ‘activist’ judges in such cases as Roe v Wade and Brown v something, concerning segregation of blacks in the 50’s.
But the telling point to me was when both Justices claimed to be ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’ in their approach to law.
Suddenly I saw the association between a current thread on the AH, by Past_Perfect, pushing a ‘dynamic’ dialectic in philosophy.
To be practical or pragmatic, in law, is to strive for a dynamic consensus of opinion, to find, in the words of O’Conner, ‘that which works’, in the context of the moment.
They made comparisons of the framers of the constitution and, for example, the 1st amendment, and noted that the framers could not have imagined the internet. They spoke of unlawful search and seizure at the time the constitution and bill of rights was written and how the framers could not have foreseen fingerprints or DNA technology.
They spoke of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, when the framers could not have foreseen sodium pentothal or other mind altering narcotics used in interrogation.
The two justices spoke of federal judges appointed over the past six years by a Republican administration and of the many state judges that are elected to office. The complaint about elected judges was of course political, campaign contributions by special interests, lawyers uppermost, who might contribute to a judges campaign and then practice before him in court.
I am aware that this is rambling…it is late, but I knew if I did not write it now, having just seen the program, that I would not write it at all, so bear with me…
As I gathered from Breyer, a Liberal, and from O’Conner, a ‘swing vote’ consensus maker, they advocate that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are both, ‘living documents’, dynamic documents, in terms of other relativist philosophers, sociologists and politicians, living documents that continue to exist and serve because the interpretation and implementation can be changed to meet new circumstances as time moves on.
Both Justices are very well educated, as is to be expected, clever and adroit in discussion, debate and argument, also to be expected and do not leave a single word to be misinterpreted or corrupted by a misspoken element in any presentation, also expected and required at their level of professional behavior.
However, (I always have an however), something in their personal demeanor, the ways in which they presented the absolute certainty of the necessity of a totally independent, life term tenure without the possibility of criticism or recall, set the hairs on the back of my neck aflurry.
Both claimed, with religious zeal, that there was no ‘activism’ in the judicial ranks, that decisions were based on law and precedent; then they both made an error, compounded by the agreement of Charlie Rose, the moderator of the program.
They said, in so many words and I must paraphrase because I did not record the program, but they said that although the intent of the framers of the constitution could be known and understood, that, that intent was general in nature, not specific and thus subject to interpretation to ‘dynamically’ suit the changing times and requirements…
Well…that opened my eyes and sat me up in my comfy recliner, for what they said, was what most here on the AH forum say and what many believe; what they said is that there are no basic principles, no absolute truths in the founding documents, only open ended ‘intents’, to be modified at the whim of each new administration through the appointment process.
Don’t take this wrongly, I fully comprehend the necessity of an independent judiciary at the federal level, a judiciary free from political persuasions and all the ills that accompany elected officials. However, even Judges have a parameter within which, by law, they must confine themselves. Judges do not legislate, they do not render decisions based on popular opinion or political bias. They are supposed to rule on 'settled' law, laws that reflect the constitutional rights and guarantees.
It is imminently clear to all who observe that many Supreme Court decisions are political decisions. The many 5-4 votes that have been mostly Liberal majorities for half a century have proven that beyond a doubt..
That two, one former, one active, Supreme Court Justices are, in effect, out on the campaign trail, pre-empting a possible Bush appointment to the Court, is so unusual as to be alarming concerning the nature of the independent court system in this nation.
The long time Liberal court is being threatened and an all out, no holds barred offensive is underway.
It should be interesting.
Amicus…
In an amazing and rather unusual event, two Justices, former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Conner and current Associate Justice, Stephen Breyer were interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS to a nationwide audience.
I was spellbound by the interview, to the point of not leaving the interview for the duration for fear of missing a single word, yes, that compelling. I only hope I can do justice in relaying what I heard and saw.
For those who don’t know, it is very unusual for Supreme Court Justices to submit to media interviews, it happens only rarely.
It took nearly the entire program before I realized why these two Justices had agreed to speak publicly, usually, if they speak at all it is at a law school forum that is closed to the media.
Apparently there is legislation in Congress to limit the scope of cases the Supreme Court can hear and legislation at the state level to penalize judges who litigate in an ‘active’ sense, beyond constitutional limits set by custom and tradition.
Both Justices railed at public and media accusations that judges have become ‘activist’ judges in such cases as Roe v Wade and Brown v something, concerning segregation of blacks in the 50’s.
But the telling point to me was when both Justices claimed to be ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’ in their approach to law.
Suddenly I saw the association between a current thread on the AH, by Past_Perfect, pushing a ‘dynamic’ dialectic in philosophy.
To be practical or pragmatic, in law, is to strive for a dynamic consensus of opinion, to find, in the words of O’Conner, ‘that which works’, in the context of the moment.
They made comparisons of the framers of the constitution and, for example, the 1st amendment, and noted that the framers could not have imagined the internet. They spoke of unlawful search and seizure at the time the constitution and bill of rights was written and how the framers could not have foreseen fingerprints or DNA technology.
They spoke of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, when the framers could not have foreseen sodium pentothal or other mind altering narcotics used in interrogation.
The two justices spoke of federal judges appointed over the past six years by a Republican administration and of the many state judges that are elected to office. The complaint about elected judges was of course political, campaign contributions by special interests, lawyers uppermost, who might contribute to a judges campaign and then practice before him in court.
I am aware that this is rambling…it is late, but I knew if I did not write it now, having just seen the program, that I would not write it at all, so bear with me…
As I gathered from Breyer, a Liberal, and from O’Conner, a ‘swing vote’ consensus maker, they advocate that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are both, ‘living documents’, dynamic documents, in terms of other relativist philosophers, sociologists and politicians, living documents that continue to exist and serve because the interpretation and implementation can be changed to meet new circumstances as time moves on.
Both Justices are very well educated, as is to be expected, clever and adroit in discussion, debate and argument, also to be expected and do not leave a single word to be misinterpreted or corrupted by a misspoken element in any presentation, also expected and required at their level of professional behavior.
However, (I always have an however), something in their personal demeanor, the ways in which they presented the absolute certainty of the necessity of a totally independent, life term tenure without the possibility of criticism or recall, set the hairs on the back of my neck aflurry.
Both claimed, with religious zeal, that there was no ‘activism’ in the judicial ranks, that decisions were based on law and precedent; then they both made an error, compounded by the agreement of Charlie Rose, the moderator of the program.
They said, in so many words and I must paraphrase because I did not record the program, but they said that although the intent of the framers of the constitution could be known and understood, that, that intent was general in nature, not specific and thus subject to interpretation to ‘dynamically’ suit the changing times and requirements…
Well…that opened my eyes and sat me up in my comfy recliner, for what they said, was what most here on the AH forum say and what many believe; what they said is that there are no basic principles, no absolute truths in the founding documents, only open ended ‘intents’, to be modified at the whim of each new administration through the appointment process.
Don’t take this wrongly, I fully comprehend the necessity of an independent judiciary at the federal level, a judiciary free from political persuasions and all the ills that accompany elected officials. However, even Judges have a parameter within which, by law, they must confine themselves. Judges do not legislate, they do not render decisions based on popular opinion or political bias. They are supposed to rule on 'settled' law, laws that reflect the constitutional rights and guarantees.
It is imminently clear to all who observe that many Supreme Court decisions are political decisions. The many 5-4 votes that have been mostly Liberal majorities for half a century have proven that beyond a doubt..
That two, one former, one active, Supreme Court Justices are, in effect, out on the campaign trail, pre-empting a possible Bush appointment to the Court, is so unusual as to be alarming concerning the nature of the independent court system in this nation.
The long time Liberal court is being threatened and an all out, no holds barred offensive is underway.
It should be interesting.
Amicus…
