More

Republican Presidential Candidates Would Slash Power For Federal Judges

Republican Presidential Candidates Judges

MARK SHERMAN   10/23/11 05:13 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues.

Any one of those proposals would significantly undercut the independence and authority of federal judges. Many of the ideas have been advanced before in campaigns to court conservative voters.

This time, though, six of the eight GOP candidates are backing some or all of those limits on judges, even though judges appointed by Republican presidents hold a majority on the Supreme Court and throughout the federal system.

A group that works for judicial independence says the proposals would make judges "accountable to politicians, not the Constitution."

Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, said, "Debates like these could threaten to lead to a new cycle of attempts to politicize the courts."

Only the former governors in the race, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Jon Huntsman of Utah, have not attacked federal judges in their campaigns.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been the most outspoken critic of the courts. He would summon judges before Congress to explain their decisions and consider impeaching judges over their rulings.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in his book "Fed Up," has called for an end to lifetime tenure for federal judges and referred to the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes."

Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, in criticizing Iowa judges who ruled same-sex marriage legal in the state, described judges as "black-robed masters." Bachmann said Congress should prevent the courts from getting involved in the fight over same-sex marriage, among other high-profile social issues.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has advocated cutting the jurisdiction of federal courts and has introduced a bill to that effect in the House. A judge's violation of Paul's proposed "We the People Act" would be "an impeachable offense."

Paul told Iowans in March that the country ought to come up with a way for voters to remove federal judges from office, much like several states that have retention elections for state judges

At a Tea Party forum in South Carolina in September, Republican candidate Herman Cain joined Bachmann and Gingrich in endorsing legislation that would overturn the high court's rulings declaring that women have a constitutional right to abortion. The proposal challenges the widely held view that Congress can't overrule the court's constitutional holdings.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has been particularly critical of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a preponderance of Democratic appointees. "That court is rogue. It's a pox on the Western part of our country," Santorum said at a Tea Party event in February. He pledged to sign into law a bill abolishing the appeals court.

Gingrich, too, has reserved special criticism for the 9th Circuit, saying that by squeezing its budget, Congress could force the court's judges to give up their law clerks and even turn off the lights in their courtrooms and offices.

At the Values Voters Summit in Washington in early October, Gingrich also objected to last year's ruling that struck down a ban on gay marriage that was approved by California voters, and an order by a judge in San Antonio barring public prayer at a high school graduation.

"Now, the idea of an American judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of our Constitution ... that that particular judge should be removed from office summarily," Gingrich said to applause.

Complaints about Supreme Court and lower court rulings have a long and bipartisan history in the United States. President Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing plan to increase the number of high court justices to 15 from nine grew out of decisions striking down parts of the New Deal.

Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said these efforts generally fail. "When push comes to shove, aside from some of this demagoguery on the campaign trail, most Americans are genuinely conservative. That is, they don't want to undermine the Constitution, they want to abide by it," Goldman said.

More recently, Republican candidates since Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign for the presidency have pledged to appoint conservative judges to counteract their perception of a judiciary dominated by liberal activists.

But Republicans have controlled the White House for 20 of the past 30 years, and the party breakdown on the federal bench reflects their edge, 437 appointees to 352 judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor who has written a book about the relationship between public opinion and the high court, said he is puzzled by the effort to take federal courts out of the picture. He said that would increase the influence of more liberal-leaning state courts.

"The wonder of it coming from the Republicans now is that we have what is easily the most conservative Supreme Court in many, many years. This is nothing more than red meat they throw to the conservative base," Friedman said.

Brandenburg's not-for-profit group has been critical of both parties on what it sees as efforts to undermine judicial independence. He noted that Congress passed a 2005 law with bipartisan support that sought to pressure federal courts to weigh in on the protracted family fight over keeping Terri Schiavo alive, 15 years after she slipped into what her doctors called a permanent vegetative state.

"That was both parties of Congress running as fast as they could to placate a small number of people who were angry at the courts," Brandenburg said. In Schiavo's case, a Florida state judge ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed and federal courts refused to step in, even after Congress acted.

___

Online:

Justice at Stake Campaign: http://www.justiceatstake.org

___

Follow Sherman on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/shermancourt

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supr...
WASHINGTON — Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supr...
Filed by Meghan Neal  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,678
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (49 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
dizmo4 04:13 PM on 10/23/2011
The Economist had a piece a few weeks back about the dangers of the under resourcing of the judicial system at the state level, and the politics that prevent judges from being confirmed at the federal level.

Civil litigation can take years because their simply isn't the resources available to hear the case--that costs companies millions of dollars and prevents them from fully developing future  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda Edmondson
if we don't who will
03:50 PM on 10/26/2011
This would be a move to make the Constitution read like the right wing handbook.
11:37 PM on 10/24/2011
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been the most outspoken critic of the courts. He would summon judges before Congress to explain their decisions and consider impeaching judges over their rulings"

Just another example of a political lunatic who should stay out topics he knows little about. Bringing judges before congressional committees to be grilled on their opinions is preposterous, Gingrich continues his long term reputation for shooting off his mouth with no evidence of having throught things through, completely blind to the fact that he is making a fool of himself in his outbursts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
07:23 PM on 10/24/2011
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison, Federalist 47

It has long been the goal of the republicans to achieve what some negligently refer to as "the trifecta".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:58 PM on 10/24/2011
Wow! Aren't these the same people who have been wailing about how "radical' and "extreme" our President and the Democrats have been? The contempt these people have for our Constitution is galling. That Perry, an advocate for secession, is even a "front runner" speaks volumes about the blindness and ignorance of an electorate that would support him.

Funny thing is, this has been tried before. And just like the "ideas" coming from the TeaOP, it will go down in a ball of flames just like it did before.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005467
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bloodhound41
04:25 PM on 10/24/2011
Further evidence of some Republicans' wish to turn this country into a third world, totalitarian state where whoever's in power can change the rules to assure they stay in power. They seem to forget that the very constitution they keep praising provides for three seperate and independent branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. Each there to keep an eye on the other two. Any attempt to eliminate or control one by another should be considered a treasonious attempt to overthrow that constitution.
04:11 PM on 10/24/2011
They love the constitution only so long as they don't need the pages for something else.
photo
halfpricefaustian
Voted for Obama. Waiting for Godot.
03:20 PM on 10/24/2011
This is just something conservatives do all the time. Remember "local values" from the mid 90s? That was what conservatives used to justify allowing local decisions, which were presumed to be conservative, to take precedence over federal desicions. Until, of course, the conservatives got control of congress. Then "local values" disappeared and federal rule was the way to go. This is just more childishness that will go away when it works against their interests.
photo
Rational Thought Plz
Is the Micro Bio Half
03:11 PM on 10/24/2011
Huh, they hold a majority and I don't see a one complaining about citizens united. I would not bite the hand that feeds me.
photo
orlum
Occupy your mind!
03:08 PM on 10/24/2011
How and when, exactly, did the Republican Party morph into the American Fascist Party? I guess I didn't get the memo.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThunderclapNewman
There's Something In the Air
02:53 PM on 10/24/2011
The conservative war on our Constitutional form of government is never-ending.

These people endanger the very survival of America.
photo
peakway3
It's all about the pie.......
03:19 PM on 10/24/2011
The GOTP stands by the Constitution every chance they get, but they slowly want to remove it and the protections that we have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda Edmondson
if we don't who will
04:04 PM on 10/26/2011
When they can change the part that seperates Church and State. Over turns Rove vrs. Wade.
photo
hburns1351
I'm too old to be diplomatic
02:48 PM on 10/24/2011
Right wing Definition: 'Activist Judges' - any judge that rules against conservative backed legislation or in favor of liberal backed legislation, regardless of constitutionality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Zook
Just an observant Millenial.
02:39 PM on 10/24/2011
Can any of the GOPers just admit they believe in a republic instead of a democracy? Seperation of power is what allows us to run a democracy. Or have they cut education that low that they don't know the difference between the two? It's really amazing at how many stupid things have been said by these candidates and the actual presidential election hasn't even started. Can't wait to see the hole thats been dug to whoever wins the nomination.
02:38 PM on 10/24/2011
The founding fathers debated all these nutty things the cons want to do to the seperation of powers and rejected them...But like the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, Roe v. Wade and now a non-white POTUS they just can't accept rejection of their "ideas" (??) so they bring them up constantly thinkin' someone some where will vote for them because of it...
photo
Helzapoppin
Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining.
02:23 PM on 10/24/2011
All these ideas do is prove that the GOP has zero understanding of the nature and history of American jurisprudence. They also clearly dont think much of the US Constitution.
photo
EllyB
left of center
02:12 PM on 10/24/2011
These whackadoodles are trying to create a new country one institution at a time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
97034Leftofcenter
03:31 PM on 10/24/2011
Yeah, I just keep telling them that they would be SO MUCH happier in Somalia; no taxes, zilch regulation, everyone carries a gun, and non-existent government. What's not to like?