One Person's 'Amok' is Another's 'Balance of Powers' posted by Ben

Yahoo! News - McCain Sees 'Slippery Slope' in Filibuster Ban: "At a Washington conference last week, leading social conservatives urged Congress to impeach what they termed activist federal judges, with several citing Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan and who initially received Schiavo's parents' appeal to the high court. Speakers at the conference also urged Congress to exempt entire areas of law, such as same-sex marriage, from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has also condemned 'a judiciary run amok' and urged the House Judiciary Committee to make recommendations on ways to increase congressional influence over the federal courts."

Since the courts tend to have a much slower rate of political change than the other branches of government, is it possible that, rather than the courts being out of step with conservatives, conservatives are out of step with their own history and ideology?

I find it stunning that an 'activist judge' is now simply defined as anyone who disagrees with radical conservatives. More than anything else, this illustrates the dangers of coddling an ideology based on the a priori assumption that whatever crackpot notion their leaders claim is, by definition, an absolute truth. Why is this dangerous? These people cannot conceive of a world where they could be wrong. It is so self evident to them that their cause is holy and just that they can speak blithely of overturning the judiciary's power, eliminating the filibuster, a valuable tool for minority voices, and creating an environment in Washington of unchecked power that will allow them to dictate a strict moral code that every American must follow. Except for big business, which will be allowed to do whatever it wants without consequences.

How can anyone listen to DeLay speak of a 'judiciary run amok' and not shudder?