MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript
4/5/2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
ABRAMS: "My Take"-of all the political grandstanding, this ingenious argument is rhetoric I've heard about judges and judicial activism. This by far is the most reprehensible and downright dangerous I have ever heard. I think he's subtly using the killing of a judge in Atlanta, the killing of a judge's family in Illinois to bolster a completely unrelated political agenda. These judges work hard and judges around the country I think deserve better from the U.S senator.
Joining me now is Congressman John Culberson, a Republican from Texas. Congressman, thanks very much for coming on the program. Do you think I have this one wrong?
REP. JOHN CULBERSON ®, TEXAS: Absolutely. I think you've pulled John Cornyn's comment out of context. John Cornyn is a man of great honor and integrity. He is a judge, served as a Texas Supreme Court judge, an appellate court for many years, justice. He understands that the-how important it is to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law. That quote is taken out of context...
ABRAMS: How is it taken out of-I mean I looked at the whole context of it and the bottom line is he's saying-all he said before that is, he's saying that he can't necessarily say there's any cause and effect, and then he went on to say exactly what I just played a tape of.
CULBERSON: Right. No, John Cornyn, again, respects the judiciary because he is a judge and he understands the importance of the rule of law. He is expressing overall in that speech the frustration that a lot of Americans feel that the federal judiciary is completely immune to public opinion; they're completely immune from being accountable to anybody.
My hero, Thomas Jefferson, said judges advance on noiseless steps like gravity, never yielding what they've gained. And that they had retreated to the bunkers of the judiciary in an effort to consolidate power in the judiciary and we've seen that. I think that Congress needs to take more steps to restore the accountability of judges.
I'm a member of a group of congressmen in the House who are working to pass legislation to make judges more accountable by limiting or controlling their jurisdiction, their ability to enforce orders. I'll be filing a constitutional amendment with the support of a lot of other members to give state legislators the right to approve federal district judges every 10 years.
ABRAMS: But isn't that so self-serving? Because basically what you guys are saying is you want more power. You're saying hey, we don't want judges examining the constitutionality of what we pass, we just want to-we want to go unchecked.
CULBERSON: The genius of the founding fathers' Constitution was that it left control over our government in the hands of we the people. Judges are immune. They are absolutely unaccountable and we think, I believe very strongly as I know John Cornyn does, that judges need to respect the laws that the Congress passes. Our president believes judges should interpret the law, not make the law. So my point is simply is I know that Senator Cornyn believes, as most Republicans believe, judges should interpret the law and not make law.
ABRAMS: Fair enough...
CULBERSON: Judges should absolutely follow the law passed by Congress. The people rule here and the laws that we pass on behalf of the country, judges should respect and follow.
ABRAMS: But it sounds like you're saying that they're a lesser branch of government. It sounds like what you're saying...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... it's sort of along the lines of what we heard in the Terri Schiavo case, which was this notion that somehow that Congress ordered the courts to do X, Y, or Z. I mean Congress can make laws but they can't order the courts to do anything.
CULBERSON: Well the problem here is the judges in this country have elevated themselves to essentially an oligarchy. We have a judicial oligarchy in this country that is immune completely not only from accountability to the public, but from...
ABRAMS: But isn't that what they're suppose to be...
CULBERSON: ... accountability to the people...
ABRAMS: But aren't they supposed to be...
CULBERSON: No, not at all. The founders...
ABRAMS: Let me just ask the question. I'll let you respond.
CULBERSON: Sure.
ABRAMS: But aren't they supposed to be immune from public opinion?
CULBERSON: Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law. Their responsibility as Alexander Hamilton said, the president holds the sword, the Congress holds the purse, and the judiciary in Hamilton's opinion essentially had no power whatsoever. He considered them the weakest branch because all they could do is interpret the law. And over the years as a result of the not only the War Between the States, but reconstruction, the new deal, all powers become concentrated...
ABRAMS: But wait...
CULBERSON: ... of the judges...
ABRAMS: ... they should or they shouldn't be responding to public opinion?
CULBERSON: I think judges have an obligation to respect the law passed by Congress, the people's representatives, debate, and then pass legislation that the judiciary is obligated to honor and obey...
ABRAMS: So they should just...
CULBERSON: ... unless...
ABRAMS: ... they should approve it all? They should approve it all?
CULBERSON: ... unless there's a specific violation of a very specific provision of the Constitution and that power is left up to the Supreme Court alone. When it comes to district judges, the appellate courts, all of those judges draw their existence, their power and authority from the United States Congress period.
ABRAMS: Let me come back to one issue and this is about Senator Cornyn's comment specifically. I mean I understand the argument about judicial activism and I think a lot of the points that you make are probably echoed by many in this country. But the problem is when you start linking-he was linking violence against judges to judicial activism. There's no other way to look at it.
CULBERSON: No. John Cornyn is a man of integrity and who respects the law...
ABRAMS: But he shouldn't have done it. It was a mistake, right?
CULBERSON: John Cornyn is absolutely not advocating or endorsing or condoning...
(CROSSTALK)
CULBERSON: ... violence...
ABRAMS: I agree...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: No, let me clear...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... I am in no way suggesting that, and let me be quite clear about that. But I am saying that he seems to be saying that the frustration of the people in this country is boiling so much that violence is the necessary result of judicial activism...
CULBERSON: Yes, I think that's a real stretch. Because John Cornyn is not-would never suggest-none of us would ever suggest-we can do things like, for example, I'm going to again be filing a constitutional amendment that puts a 10-year term limit on federal district judges and lets the states' legislators then vote to reaffirm those federal district judges in their states.
We can pass a variety of other laws that limit the authority of judges. I actually sued Federal Judge William Wayne, justice in Texas who had run our prisons for 30 years, but I had to pass a state law and then help write a federal law, and then I sued the judge in his own courtroom, and I won. I won back Texas' 10th Amendment sovereign power to run our prisons free from the courts.
ABRAMS: Let me...
CULBERSON: So there are ways to do this...
ABRAMS: Let me...
CULBERSON: ... legally by the books.
ABRAMS: ... play one more bite from the senator...
CULBERSON: Sure.
ABRAMS: I'm going to ask you one more question. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CORNYN: I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe and that is a national tragedy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: That's not as controversial as the other comment, but let me ask you this. Isn't it people, though, like Senator Cornyn and yourself who are breeding disrespect to the judiciary?
CULBERSON: Oh not at all. If we weren't doing-we would not be doing our job as the people's elected representatives if we did not speak out against judicial activism. Judges who ignore the laws that the Congress passes, our system of checks and balances in this country has been largely lost. If judges can change the law by majority opinion and-excuse me, if the Supreme Court and judges by majority opinion can rewrite the Constitution, I think that's destructive of our system of government.
You wonder why we haven't had any constitutional amendments in so many years, I think it's because the United States Supreme Court and our judiciary have taken it upon themselves to just simply amend the Constitution by a majority opinion. And that is wrong and the Congress and the people need to pass laws. We need I think all of us working with state legislators, the Congress and the state legislators through the legal process passing statutes...
ABRAMS: Well...
CULBERSON: ... through litigation and finally through a constitutional amendment such as the one I'm proposing...
ABRAMS: Yes.
CULBERSON: ... to limit the power of judges and make them accountable...
ABRAMS: Look...
CULBERSON: ... and responsible.
ABRAMS: ... I say you want to appoint more conservative judges, go for it...
CULBERSON: You bet.
ABRAMS: ... but the...
CULBERSON: ... the Democrats and Ted Kennedy...
ABRAMS: ... go for it, but the idea of the Congress getting involved in trying to restrict any judge's power, I don't care what their belief is, et cetera, I think is so dangerous. But...
CULBERSON: Well the president...
ABRAMS: ... final 20 seconds...
CULBERSON: ... I'd say President Bush, the Congress, the people have spoken. They want our president to be able to point to judges who reflect his will, and that is interpret and don't make law from the bench and the Senate needs to approve the president's judges and the judges need to respect the laws we pass.
ABRAMS: Congressman Culberson, thanks a lot...
CULBERSON: Thank you very much.
ABRAMS: ... for coming on the program. I appreciate it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7406332/