In 2005, the President of the ABA had this to say about threats to judicial independence:

 

In addition to addressing the funding and security issues, we must address the current atmosphere in which our courts operate—whether state or federal—and what can only be called a decline in civility and respect toward our justice system.  Our worsening atmosphere is as deadly a weapon against an independent judiciary as is any individual assailant, and carries with it the potential to do greater harm because it uses stealth, not blunt force, to achieve its goals.  It eats away at and alters the public’s perception of judges and the justice system until the judiciary is neither understood nor respected.   The last several weeks have been challenging, difficult times for the U.S. judiciary.

 

The clamor rising in some quarters for retributive action against judges in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, and the draconian stance against the judiciary of some of our country’s lawmakers, is dangerous.   Not all politicians have indulged in such inappropriate rhetoric. Many, including the vice president and senate majority leader, have spoken up against the verbal assaults lobbied by some in congress against judges.   As the future lawyers and judges of our country, I know you share my concern over the public’s confusion and misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role as espoused by the politically motivated criticism stemming from the Schiavo case. Amid the escalating rhetoric, careful analysis, thoughtful leadership and measured response are needed.   Regardless of how one feels about the specific circumstances of the Schiavo—or any—situation, the role of the judiciary is clear.  Federal and state judges are charged with weighing the facts of a case and following the law, responsibilities they carry out valiantly and with great dignity and sensitivity.  In this culture, legitimate skepticism and rigorous criticism are replaced by cynicism. Too often judges are characterized as political tools and the justice system merely an offshoot of politics, and not the independent leg of our democracy that they are.

 

Maintaining public confidence in the judiciary depends upon Congress and the courts interacting with restraint and common purpose.   Our national rhetoric and, sadly, that of some of our political leaders have combined to create an unsavory “us vs. them” attitude toward our justice system.   We can see it in efforts to strip the courts of their right to hear controversial cases, or in state election campaigns which target judges who made unpopular decisions or which seek to ensure particular outcomes in future cases.   And we can hear it in the harsh verbal assaults on judges on the airways over their decisions-- the din over the Schiavo case is only the most recent example.   The ABA is steadfast in its opposition to these actions.

 

 

The, ah, hysteria over Clarence Thomas and Citizens United has just gotten more hysterical, with a Caperton angle now. http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_Bar_Supplement.pdf

 

Can’t remember if this scenario was one of the 43 (?) questions that Chief Justice Roberts raised in his dissent.

 

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

124 S. West Street, #201

Alexandria, VA  22310

(703) 894-6800 phone

(703) 894-6813 direct

(703) 894-6811 fax