Gagging those judges
Tom DeLay is at it again. Surprise, surprise.
This time he's labeled Supreme Court Justice Kennedy as "outrageous" because he bases decisions on international law rather than the American Constitution (a criticism that may have some weight) and because he admitted to doing his own research on the Internet.
Okay, give me a second here. Let's assume for the moment that Justice Kennedy does, in fact, consult international law when considering his position on certain issues. In itself, what makes that such a bad thing?
First, DeLay is a major supporter of the Bush administration, which recently called Iran to task for failing to consult international law in formulating its policies on energy and nuclear technology. So DeLay must think it's a bad idea for Iran to refer to its national laws over international law, but a good idea for the United States to refer to its national laws over international law. I'm inclined to agree that the United States is more trustworthy than Iran, but it's bad form for someone like Tom DeLay to be quite so overt about it.
Second, and this is really the crux of the issue, what DeLay really seems to want is some sort of Congressional control over the judiciary. He said, "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that."
Look, Tommy, the whole point of an independent judiciary is that it's not subject to popular vote. Let's face it, the people don't always want what's fair or just - all you have to do to recognize that is read up on segregationist Jim Crow laws. (DeLay had better know about those - he's from Texas, for God's sake.) You let people vote, directly or through their Congressional representatives, on what judges can or can't do, and the next thing you know you've got this. Or someone like George W. Bush or Tom DeLay claims that he knows the will of the people, and then you get this, or something worse.
The point was made very well in a recent book by Fareed Zakaria - voters in a democracy can vote themselves anything they want, including things that might be very bad for democracy, illegal or just plain wrong. Therefore, a democratic society needs to protect itself against that possibility with institutions that are not answerable to the electorate. And that, Mr. DeLay, includes the courts. So hands off.
Benshlomo says, Vox populi, vox humbug.
This time he's labeled Supreme Court Justice Kennedy as "outrageous" because he bases decisions on international law rather than the American Constitution (a criticism that may have some weight) and because he admitted to doing his own research on the Internet.
Okay, give me a second here. Let's assume for the moment that Justice Kennedy does, in fact, consult international law when considering his position on certain issues. In itself, what makes that such a bad thing?
First, DeLay is a major supporter of the Bush administration, which recently called Iran to task for failing to consult international law in formulating its policies on energy and nuclear technology. So DeLay must think it's a bad idea for Iran to refer to its national laws over international law, but a good idea for the United States to refer to its national laws over international law. I'm inclined to agree that the United States is more trustworthy than Iran, but it's bad form for someone like Tom DeLay to be quite so overt about it.
Second, and this is really the crux of the issue, what DeLay really seems to want is some sort of Congressional control over the judiciary. He said, "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that."
Look, Tommy, the whole point of an independent judiciary is that it's not subject to popular vote. Let's face it, the people don't always want what's fair or just - all you have to do to recognize that is read up on segregationist Jim Crow laws. (DeLay had better know about those - he's from Texas, for God's sake.) You let people vote, directly or through their Congressional representatives, on what judges can or can't do, and the next thing you know you've got this. Or someone like George W. Bush or Tom DeLay claims that he knows the will of the people, and then you get this, or something worse.
The point was made very well in a recent book by Fareed Zakaria - voters in a democracy can vote themselves anything they want, including things that might be very bad for democracy, illegal or just plain wrong. Therefore, a democratic society needs to protect itself against that possibility with institutions that are not answerable to the electorate. And that, Mr. DeLay, includes the courts. So hands off.
Benshlomo says, Vox populi, vox humbug.
posted by benshlomo at 9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home