News Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amy Auth
202-225-2071

By Rep. Virginia Foxx

With Supreme Court confirmation hearings set to begin this month for Samuel Alito, a heated debate will resume about the proper role of the judiciary.

Many people agree that a judge’s job is to hear and decide cases by faithfully applying the law -- and only the law. After all, many states have codes of ethics requiring judges to make fair decisions without being swayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

It sounds like a pretty straightforward process doesn’t it?

The catch is that judges often disagree on what “applying the law” means. While some judges simply read the law and apply it, others think they have the power to make a law mean whatever they want it to mean -- regardless of what the law actually says.

This type of thinking is known as “judicial activism” or, more bluntly, “legislating from the bench.” The problem with judicial activism is that it violates our Constitution’s Separation of Powers doctrine and allows people who are unelected and unaccountable to make life-altering decisions regarding our public policy.

According to Article 1 of the Constitution, all legislative powers are vested in the Congress. Article 2 states that the executive power is vested with the President and Article 3 states that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court (with inferior courts to be established by the Congress.) Each branch has unique powers that limit the powers of the other branches. These “checks and balances” were intended to prevent the concentration and abuse of power within our government.

The Constitution does not give judges the power to make laws. Rather, it empowers American citizens to elect representatives to Congress and state legislatures who, in turn, make the laws that govern our land. If people are unhappy with the laws made by their elected representatives, they can simply vote them out of office. This is not the case with many judges, who are often appointed to lengthy terms.

This debate has great implications on our day-to-day lives. Activist judges have already used a non-Constitutional “right to privacy” to impose their pro-abortion beliefs on this country. They have extended government benefits to illegal aliens and have ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings. Recently, our Supreme Court ruled that cities could seize personal and private property for commercial business development.

Judicial activism makes our country’s laws uncertain and clogs our courts with frivolous cases. These are a few of the many reasons that I support judges who are “strict constructionists” and limit their judicial interpretations to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law.

Strict constructionism is important because it maintains the original intent of our lawmakers and the framers of the Constitution. When we attempt to change the meaning of the Constitution and other laws, we risk violating our liberties. Times do change, but human nature and the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not. When a judge decides to institute new law arbitrarily, the judge is stepping outside of the framework that our founders put in place to protect all Americans.

This is why I strongly support President Bush’s efforts to appoint justices at all levels of the judiciary who will rule on laws and not create them. When we play by the rules our framers gave us, the government functions in an accountable and effective way.

Editor’s Note: Virginia Foxx is a United States Representative from North Carolina’s Fifth Congressional District. You may contact her office toll free at 1-866-677-8968.

###