FRC's Perkins: Judicial Activism -- Whether Liberal or Conservative -- Is Wrong
by Jody Brown and Bill Fancher
July 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - One pro-family leader in America's capital says he opposes activist judges -- whether they be liberal or conservative -- because the role of the judiciary is not to craft and impose public policy on U.S. citizens.Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has been keeping close tabs on the nomination and confirmation of judges to the federal bench. And while he concurs with his fellow pro-life advocates that Roe v. Wade should be reversed, he is not pushing specifically for a new Supreme Court justice who will overturn what he describes as a "judicially flowed decision."
| | 
Tony Perkins |
"[O]ur Founders understood that issues of policy were to be decided by the elected representatives of the people -- not un-elected judges," Perkins says on the FRC website. "As long as un-elected judges continue to craft the culture-shaping policies of this nation, there will be conflict in the body politic."That is why he desires that the Supreme Court of the future be populated with judges who will interpret -- not make -- the law. When that happens, he believes Roe will be reversed by state legislatures that exercise their constitutional authority to limit abortion -- as many did by passing bans on partial-birth abortion.
But that does not mean the pro-family group is sitting idly by during the nomination/confirmation process. In fact, FRC is sponsoring a series of radio ads in the home states of two Democratic senators. The aim of the campaign is to draw attention to those senators' stand on judicial nominees.
The radio spots call for Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts to step aside during the Supreme Court judicial nomination process.
"A judge who's mind is already made up has to recuse himself, which means withdraw from considering the case," says the ad. "Senators Schumer and Kennedy should recuse themselves from the debate over the next Supreme Court nominee."
Both senators have stated they will not accept any nominee unless he or she agrees with their way of thinking. The choice of who sits on the high court has always been at the prerogative of the president.
Meanwhile, a Republican senator says the process of nominating a new justice to the Supreme Court -- replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- will most likely follow the same path that lower-court nominees have been forced to endure.
"The Supreme Court nominee will go through the Judiciary Committee, [and] I believe we will be able to get them on through," says Senator Sam Brownback. "It will probably be a direct party-line vote, and if it is a majority vote on the Senate floor, I think we'll be able to get them confirmed."
But Democrats have already said the filibuster is on the table if the nominee does not meet their standards. "If it's a supermajority as required by filibuster, I don't think we'd be able to get them confirmed," the Kansas lawmaker says.
But Brownback says Senate rules could still be changed to ban filibusters of judicial nominees.
