|
Conservatives Suggest
Arrogant
Judiciary Bullying Other Branches
By Bill
Fancher and Jody Brown
 (AgapePress)
- Conservatives gathered in Washington,
DC, over the weekend to put a spotlight on the dangers of judicial
activism -- something they see as a growing crisis in the country's
judiciary.
Over the past
several years, numerous conservative and pro-family leaders -- among
them Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Dr. Donald Wildmon
of the American Family Association -- have railed against judges and
judicial ruling that are apparently based on ideology instead of
constitutional law. Also among those critics is Tony Perkins of the
Family Research Council, who was at the weekend
conference.
|
Tony Perkins |
Perkins says
judicial activists in American have developed an arrogance that says
they are the ultimate authority on all issues. That is not the way
the nation's founding fathers set up the Judicial branch of the
government, he says.
"Our founders
created a system of checks and balances -- three branches of
government -- where you have the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial," Perkins points out, "and the other two always having the
opportunity to check the other."
Many judges
have voiced their anger at Congress for asking for a re-examination
of the Terri Schiavo case, an action that is clearly spelled out in
Article Three of the Constitution. Some critics claim judicial
activists just do not know what the Constitution says. Like Perkins,
Howard Phillips of the
Conservative Caucus sees an arrogant judiciary that
bullies the other branches of government.
Phillips also
watched that haughty attitude show forth in the recent Terri Schiavo
matter. "The federal Constitution makes clear that the Legislature
is primary, the Executive secondary, the Judiciary in third place,"
he says. "Yet the Judiciary, because of the cowardice and ignorance
of people in the other two branches, was able to be dominant in this
matter."
The U.S.
Constitution only establishes the Supreme Court. All other courts
have been created by congressional action and are subject to
congressional oversight. Conferees at the gathering in the nation's
capital said that oversight is something that needs to be exercised.
Filibuster's
Primary Objective?
Maintaining the status quo of the judiciary appears to be the
motivation behind Senate Democrats who have effectively stalemated
many of President Bush's nominations to the federal bench. Gary
Bauer of
American Values says the debate over the Democratic-led
filibuster against Bush's conservative and pro-life nominees is a
basic issue of fairness.
|
Gary Bauer |
"The judicial
nominees that are being held up by the filibuster have not been
accused of any ethical problems, haven't cheated on their taxes.
Nobody's accused them of anything inappropriate," he told The
Washington Times recently. "The only think they've been accused of
is sharing a philosophy of the president who nominated them."
Many of those
nominees, say observers, have been subjected to a religious "litmus
test" as their opponents have criticized them for their "deeply held
beliefs" on moral issues. FRC's Tony
Perkins wonders if any faithful Christian can be seen as qualified
by liberals in the Senate.
"The secular
ideology of the Senate liberals engaged in judicial filibusters is
sweeping," he says. "Not only do they wish to wipe out any vestige
of religious expression in the public square, but they also aim to
make it impossible for people of religious and moral conviction to
hold judicial office."
The
Democratic leader in the Senate, Nevada's
Harry Reid, has labeled the president's blocked nominees as
extremists, and has threatened to effectively shut down Senate
operations if the majority GOP attempts to change the rules
governing continuation of the filibuster. A spokesperson for the
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary suggests that Reid examine
the effect such obstructionist tactics had on one of his former
long-time Senate colleagues, Tom Daschle. That approach, says the
Coalition's Kay Daly, led to Daschle's defeat last November.
"I understand
Mr. Daschle has a lot of time on his hands to discuss such options,"
Daly told the Times.
© 2005 AgapePress
all rights reserved.
Reprinted with Permission from Agape Press |
