Has the Judicial Branch Become too Politicized?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/02/05/Anthony_Lewis_Defending_Thought_That_We_Hate

New York Times Op-Ed columnist Anthony Lewis discusses the alleged "politicization" of the federal judiciary under President Bush.

-----

The First Amendment: Defending Thought That We Hate with Anthony Lewis.

The First Amendment ensures that all Americans have the right to free speech, but it was only in the 20th century that the Supreme Court began to consistently enforce this basic freedom. A renowned author and literary critic, Lewis will explore how the First Amendment came to represent what it does today, taking a close look at how the courts, public opinion and the political will of the time have influenced its significance over the course of our country's development - The Commonwealth Club of California

Anthony Lewis, twice winner of the Pulitzer Prize, is a columnist for The New York Times. His column, which appears on the Op-Ed page, is called Abroad at Home. Residing in Boston, he travels widely in this country and abroad. Prior to becoming a columnist he was based in Washington, D.C., covering the Supreme Court, and in London as its bureau chief.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• judges
• law
• legal
• supreme
• court
• alito
• thomas
• scalia
• roberts
• conservatives
• liberals
• bush
• appointments
• political
• politics
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[UdallIn72]

Well, I'm not sure it's more politicized than it's EVER been. There's always Dred Scott to consider.

Also, if you've read the constitution, you'll know that treason consists only of levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

You can take my word for it.

There's nothing in the treason clause about a Court not following its own precedents.

[sklanger]

The vast majority of petitions are denied cert (around 95%?) so why are you so surprised that your petition was denied? First impression means jack if the issue isn't ripe, is moot, involves no circuit splits, presents no federal question, or god forbid, was correctly decided.

[keithlogan365]

If you want social progress, you can get that without any legal change. If you really feel you need a change in the law, you can change anything through constitutional amendment and almost anything through statute. The American court system is not supposed to create (or inhibit) social progress; its function is to apply existing laws and resolve conflicts between them.

[keithlogan365]

Slavery was ended (legally) by constitutional amendment, not a court decision.

Social progress should not be driven by the courts.

[sklanger]

95% of cert petitions are denied. You're not special.

[KobyBrandt]

You've got that one right. Total self-interest and a total lack of integrity. These are our highest (and most respected and "moral" ha ha) judges? What a complete farce.

[akinfurno]

the flavor of the mouth club. the hole system is broken. there's know checks and balance, when the all crocked, and I blame golf. hahaha. It's all about, how I can further my career. I scratch your back now, you scratch my back later.

[KobyBrandt]

The judiciary (especially the Federal Judiciary) is definitely more politicized than it's ever been. I'm familiar with a very recent "first impression" Constitutional question that made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court & the Supremes refused to hear it (denied Cert). The Supreme Court's primary function & responsibility is to interpret the meaning of portions of the Constsitution. This was such a case. They committed TREASON by defying their very own precedent in neglecting the case.

[superfisto]

As a lawyer, I feel that I will never make judgeship unless I'm politically polarized.