Time For Judging

Sen. Cornyn is getting lots of flack for a speech he made concerning the judiciary’s loss of respect. He has made some points, one of which is that the judges have lost some of their neutrality, or as he puts it:

“I believe the increasing politicization of the judicial decisionmaking process at the highest levels of our judiciary has bred a lack of respect for some of the people who wear the robe. That is a national tragedy.”

With this, I would agree; although I find it difficult to draw the connection with that and the latest violence against judges, i.e. Atlanta.

I am not sure he is correct in his view that our judiciary is over influenced by foreign law, either- I haven’t really looked at that, but I do wholeheartedly agree with this:

“As every high school civics student knows, the job of a judge is pretty straightforward. Judges are supposed to follow the law, not rewrite it. Judges are supposed to enforce and apply political decisions that are made in Congress and that are signed into law by the President of the United States.”

I think this is contributing to a general state of greater lawlessness in our country, if not directly influencing particular crimes to be perpetrated.

People of the United States are increasingly feeling as though they are not fairly represented by the voting process when it is too often overturned by judicial activism in which there is no recourse. One of the troubles with this vague unease is its vulnerability to be incited. It is sometimes inflamed during election years with all the rhetoric that the opposition wasn’t elected “fairly” or whatever.

This has been going on for some time now. Witness the history of what has happened to our Bill of Rights freedom of religion. Did you ever wonder why the acts of congress to reinstate religious liberty through legislation? Did you ever consider why that was deemed necessary?

It is because the judiciary, ignoring previous tests, made a precedent by which the government trumps the individuals right to practice their religion.

Look into it. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra1.htm

I think that Cornyn is making statements worth debating, even if they are not completely correct as stated.

the speech: http://cornyn.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236007

Greg started me on this little diversion today by sending me over to http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ where I came across the discussion about Cornyn. Some of these pathways are odder than Harry Lauders walking stick.

Throw this into the discussion stew on the Life/Death ethics review.

Should there be judicial test in place for the type of decisions which we saw made for Terri Schiavo? what should those tests look like? And do they come through the courts or through the legislature?