Attack Update: January 8, 2007
- The Radical: Justice Antonin Scalia
- The Attack: Justice Scalia purports to take aim at “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench,” in a speech in Cleveland.
- The Significance: It is difficult to put Justice Scalia’s name on this list. Even if the man is firmly against GLBT rights, it is somewhat difficult when a member of the Supreme Court discusses the issue of “activist judges.” That being said, Justice Scalia is well into the realm of hypocrisy when he shifts his attack from “activist judges” to those acting as “moral arbiters” for our country. In his own opinions, Justice Scalia has certainly made moral judgments in deciding GLBT cases and has been the author of some of the most vicious Supreme Court dissents in recent memory, in cases such as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his 2004 year-end report on the federal judiciary, stated that demands for the impeachment of judges "who issue decisions regarded by some as out of the mainstream" have strained inter-branch governmental relations. Rehnquist continued:
Federal judges were severely criticized 50 years ago for their unpopular, some might say activist, decisions in the desegregation cases, but those actions are now an admired chapter in our national history.
[A] judge's judicial acts 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.
|
