Rehnquist Concerned About Criticism of Judiciary

Rehnquist seems to be criticizing congress for discussing and/or enacting laws that are intended to control activist judges.

He noted that in his annual report last year, he had criticized Congress for not seeking input from the judiciary before it approved a law aimed at forcing judges to follow tougher sentencing guidelines.

Now, why would the congress check with the judiciary if the intent is to force the judiciary to follow the laws?

U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist expressed concern on Saturday that criticism of federal judges had increased in recent years, particularly for "judicial activism."

"Criticism of judges has dramatically increased in recent years, exacerbating in some respects the strained relationship between the Congress and the federal judiciary," he said in his 2004 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.

"Although arguments over the federal judiciary have always been with us, criticism of judges, including charges of activism, have in the eyes of some taken a new turn in recent years," said Rehnquist

Isn't criticism something allowed to the citizens and the congress? Especially, when in context of some of the extremes that several courts have been taking in rewriting federal laws? If you need an example, look at the findings of the 9th circuit court. The most over turned circuit court in the US by the supreme court.

"At the same time, there have been suggestions to impeach federal judges who issue decisions regarded by some as out of the mainstream," he said.

I can understand his concern over the impeachment. I think that that may be going beyond the appropriate level of control that should be exercised by the congress. That is why there is a hierarchical judiciary for over view.

"No doubt the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, will continue to encounter challenges to its independence and authority because of dissatisfaction with particular decisions or the general direction of its jurisprudence," he said.

Well, that shouldn't be a surprise. When the courts decide that they don't want to follow the word of the enacted laws, then they should consider that the dissatisfaction is maybe justified. The judiciary is supposed to enforce the laws, not change those laws to fit their own personal political or moral standards.