A Significant Battle, an Ongoing War

Judicature, January/February 2012 | Go to article overview

A Significant Battle, an Ongoing War


Campaign rhetoric continues to threaten the independence of the courts

Rhetorical attacks on the federal judiciary by contenders for the Republican presidential nomination have been an unfortunate centerpiece of the already tumultuous race for the White House in 2012. The character of the accusations should be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to political discourse on judges and courts. Mainstream judicial rulings that don't comport well with a particular political philosophy are portrayed as "radical," and "out of touch." Judges whose rulings are perceived as unwelcome to any particular individual or group are portrayed as "imperial" and "activist." These labels are applied without regard to the law or logic of their decisions.

Political attacks on the Federal judiciary are as old as the Republic itself, but the latest salvos in the long political war against judges have increased the rhetorical heat to an alarming degree. Proposals by some candidates include the abolition of entire courts, the limitation of their jurisdiction over certain politically sensitive subjects, and the impeachment of judges who issue rulings that displease the President or Congress. One extreme measure would allow for the subpoena of federal judges whose rulings are questioned by Congress, and the arrest of judges who refuse to comply.

Much space has been devoted to analysis suggesting that these proposals would violate the separation of powers so carefully crafted in our Constitution, by undermining the independence of the courts, and subjecting them to the whims of political influence. Pundits from across the political spectrum have decried them as dangerously hyperbolic, going beyond criticism to actively threatening the judiciary in an attempt to gin up political support.

Even critics of the courts have warned that, should one of these anti-court candidates be fortunate enough to win the presidency in November, their proposals would still be very difficult to enact. Presidents can publicly disagree with court rulings, but stripping courts of jurisdiction, imposing term limits, or issuing subpoenas for sitting judges would require the cooperation of Congress. Further, public support for the judiciary remains higher than for the President or legislators, despite decades of increasingly strident anticourt rhetoric.

These proposals have been analyzed by opinion makers and academics, and generally dismissed as dangerous, unconstitutional, and extremely impractical. Supporters of fair and impartial courts, in particular, have devoted considerable time and energy to debunking them. We join the discussion, however, to urge continued vigilance, and caution against allowing the sound and fury of the campaign season to distract from the threats to a robust and independent judiciary.

There are good reasons to expect that our nation's courts will continue to be a target of campaign rhetoric. This term, the Supreme Court will decide several contentious cases, with clear political dimensions. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

A Significant Battle, an Ongoing War
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.