Republican presidential candidates are issuing biting and sustained attacks on the federal courts and the role they play in American life, reflecting and stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, calling it "a rogue court" that is "consistently radical."
Criticism of "activist judges" and of particular Supreme Court decisions has long been a staple of political campaigns. But the new attacks, coming from most of the Republican candidates, raise broader questions about how the legal system might be reshaped if one of them is elected to the White House.
"These threats go far beyond normal campaign season posturing," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, a research and advocacy group that seeks to protect judicial independence. "They sound populist, but the proposal is to make courts answer to politicians and interest groups."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has so far shied away from the far-reaching criticisms. But his rivals have shown no such reticence in attacking a federal court system in which their side has achieved significant victories.
The Supreme Court delivered the presidency to George W. Bush, interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms and allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections.
The Republican candidates have focused their anger at court rulings on social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and the role of religion in public life. Those issues hold the potential to fire up the party's base and to provide crucial support in the primaries.
In attacking the courts, the Republican candidates sometimes seem to hedge their vows to remain faithful to the Constitution. Many of their proposals would require it to be amended.
Section 1 of Article III, for instance, confers life tenure on federal judges. But Perry, in his book "Fed Up!," wrote approvingly of proposals "to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power."
In his book, Perry also discussed allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote. This too would require a constitutional amendment, assuming that the power of judicial review established in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 continues to be accepted.
But the Marbury decision, which gave the Supreme Court the last word in interpreting the Constitution, has its critics. Gingrich, for instance, told the Values Voter Summit in October that "judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the American system of self-government."
Poster Comment:
Constitution? What Constitution? It's just a god-damned piece of paper, after all.
