Upon further judicial review of an ealier post, with the help of the 2 Regular guys at CBS2Chicago.com:
As Kajsa said in her 11/11 post on Illinois' law instituted moment of silence under the "Silent Game" post the controversial public law has failed to pass federal court constitutional muster this past week.
A U.S. Federal Judge from the Northern Illinois District, Robert Gettleman, ordered a preliminary injunction prohibiting District 214 from observing this law. He suspects this law violates the First Amendment protection against an "establishment of religion." His decision is based upon a civil suit brought by a Buffalo Grove student. Judge Gettleman stopped short of applying his injunction to all public schools in Illinois. He did state, however, that the Illinois state school supertintendent lacked the power to enforce the law.
This story is interesting on many levels.
First it reminds us of the importance of our rights. But it also reminds us of the power of federal judges. Judge Gettleman practiced here a concept known as "judicial review." Judicial review is the power given to federal judges to rule on the constitutionality of law. Despite the democratic process that passed this law in Illinois, a single judge, appointed by a president, serving a life term, can nullify the provision. This is an extraordinary power. The precedent was set in the court case Marbury v. Madison (1803).
This moment of silence law has cause quite a lot of talk here in Illinois. "The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" is worthy of our debate. This week we are reminded of another topic worth discussing. Do federal judges have too much power? What prevents judges from taking their power and authority too far? Does judicial review somehow make judges above the law?
If only we had time for reflection.
3 comments:
Remember, federal judges can be impeached and removed from office, too. Also, very few laws are subjected to judicial review, and since there needs to be a solid case for needing judicial review, I wouldn't worry too much about excessively powerful judges. Judicial review does not put judges above the law. Example: Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 upheld "seperate but equal," but the ruling was overturned in 1954 with Brown v. Board. A judge's decision can always be overturned later.
Garrett raises some valid points. Not only are there ways to get rid of an abusive federal judge, one shouldn't consider their power as overwhelming. It is the judicial branch's job to make sure laws follow the Constitution, and it is this duty to protect our most sacred laws that requires judges to wield such power.
Judicial review is a necessary power in our separated system of government. It stands to reason that a government based on the words of one defining document, ought to have a body comprised of competent people who can access the government's adherence to that document. Without the process of judicial review there would be no legitimate means of preventing Congress or the states from passing unconstitutional laws.
Post a Comment