President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in the White House around 1930. In the 1930s, Roosevelt's "Court Packaging" program put the United States on the brink of a constitutional crisis. /AFP via Getty Images Closed subtitles
Donald Trump is not the first U.S. president to criticize "radical judges" for allegedly obstructing his agenda, but he is probably the voice of the voice.
Since the beginning of the second term, President Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges against his administration, often accusing them of political bias and judicial responsibility. "We cannot allow a few communist left-wing judges to obstruct our law enforcement and assume duties that belong only to the President of the United States," Trump told supporters late last month.
The Constitution covers the bedrock principle and separation of powers of independent judiciary, but this has not prevented the president and congressmen from criticizing federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, when they disagree with their decision.
"In a limited constitution, the complete independence of the court is crucial," Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Paper in 1788.
the term Judicial Actionism Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. created in 1947 wealth Magazine. He used it to describe certain Supreme Court justices during the administration of Roosevelt and Truman, especially in the context of new transaction reforms - they believed that they viewed the judiciary as a tool to advance social justice. Schlesinger, by contrast, praised other judges as "protagonists of self-discipline."
However, criticism of activist judges predated the term and came from both ends of the political field. Both Democratic and Republican presidents accuse the court of exceeding its constitutional role. "Judicial activism is largely in the eyes of lovers," said Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University and a law professor who authors the subject. "One person's activism is another person's reasonable decision-making."
Cornell’s School of Law and Information defines judicial activism as “the practice of judges ruling based on their policy perspectives rather than their honest interpretation of existing laws.” It contrasts with it Judicial constraintswhich emphasizes respect for precedents and reluctance to reinterpret established laws.
"Judgement should be a relatively conservative person - with a small 'c' - effort," Friedman said. "If a judge is too easy to overturn precedents, or extends legal reasoning too far, you might call it activism."
However, politically, labels are often more lax. "It became a saying, 'We don't like what the courts do,'" said Keith Whittington, a professor at Yale Law School. "This was originally a term used by left-leaning critics in the early 20th century, but by the mid-century, conservatives had accepted it. Now, it's a bipartisan complaint."
Friedman said Americans have different stages of rulings against the Supreme Court: it is not uncommon to ignore their rulings in the early stages of the court. A good example, he said Georgia v. Tassel, Dating back to 1830. In it, A Cherokee man was convicted of murder but later appealed to the Supreme Court. However, Georgia refused to recognize the Superior Court’s power to review the case and enforce tassels.
"Then comes the age of justice supremacy, and the court's ruling is accepted as the final ruling," Friedman said.
Notorious and far-reaching case of 1857 Dred Scott v. SandfordHe said the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens and Congress had no right to ban slavery, which was a model of this era.
"when Dred Scott "Being passed down, we entered this supreme period. So the people who read the decisions violently disagree with it, dabbled in many dodges to explain why, even if it seemed like saying something, it really didn't."
By the early 20th century, President Franklin D. responded by proposing to expand the number of judges, a move known as the "court pack." Roosevelt defended the proposal in a 1937 fireplace chat, accusing the High Court of “not as a judiciary, but as a policy-making body.”
“As a country that has to act to save the Constitution from the courts and courts, we have reached the point,” Roosevelt said.
Even before the court packaging plan was developed, a series of cases challenged the Roosevelt plan to remove the United States from the gold standard and ban debt repayment put the country on the brink of a constitutional crisis. "The government said, "I really don't think we can tolerate any objection." ”
"There were rumors that the judge would be arrested...the court would be dissolved," he said.
Richard Fallon Jr, professor at Harvard Law School.
Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign positioned him as a Supreme Court opponent, then led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren Court is often regarded by historians as the most liberal.
President Nixon accused Warren Court criminals, said Laura Kalman, a research professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “His words made the court too tolerant of criminals and an obstacle to law enforcement.”
Kalman said that as an alternative to judicial activism, Nixon advocated "strict constructivism" - a conservative legal philosophy that is as close to the constitution's original intention to explain the law.
Fallon said that according to President Ronald Reagan's era, "Judicial Actionism" refers to the failure of the judge to veto policies that the Conservatives see as "inconsistent with the meaning of the original constitution."
Reagan complained about the activist judge on multiple occasions during his tenure as president. For example, in his 1987 speech on the proposed criminal justice reform, he condemned the “liberal phenomenon” that created “thinking it was their right to make laws, not just to interpret them.”
Now Trump’s criticism seems to be the most discerning criticism, Friedman said, marking a “stage of highly politicization, where judicial rulings are often fought over and used as political feed,” Friedman said.
It is true that Roosevelt has a strong Democratic majority in Congress. However, the ideological shift avoids confrontation with the courts. Justice Owen J. Roberts proposed the “Save Nine Times Transformation”, a sudden change in his voting pattern, which meant Roosevelt would not need to propose his court-packing proposal to protect his policy plan.
"There is extensive academic debate about what the exact explanation for a timely conversion is...but the sure conversion shows that the package court's plan played a role," Whittington said.
In 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts felt forced Defend judicial independence Oppose Trump's criticism of a decision of "Judge Obama". "We don't have Judge Obama or Judge Trump, Judge Bush or Judge Clinton," Roberts said in a statement. "What we have is an extraordinary dedicated judge who does everything he can to do as much as he can to the same rights as the person in front of him. The independent judiciary is something we all deserve to thank."
Recently, Roberts responded to Trump’s criticism of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. In a March post on social media, the president said Boothberg was an unelected "troublemaker and inciteer" who deserved to be impeached.
"Trump's remarks have aroused another rare condemnation by the Chief Justice: "It has been determined for two centuries that impeachment is an appropriate response to the differences on judicial decisions," Roberts said. "The normal appeal review process is for this purpose. ”
Whitington said the Chief Justice was “doing things that were traditionally unwilling to do.”
"But, you know, I think he obviously thinks in the current environment... (the court) needs a defense."