[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 42 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1412-H1413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly talk on the subject 
of judicial activism. This was talked about a few minutes ago by the 
majority whip.

[[Page H1413]]

  I have to say that it personally hits home in what I have been 
reading lately about the threats of judicial activism. I have been 
teaching my 9-year-old about democracy. We have been going through the 
history of the Greeks and the Romans and also the British Empire and 
America, and I have been trying to explain to him about the concept of 
democracy.
  It is always interesting to have a 9-year-old asking basic questions 
like, ``Daddy, what is democracy?'' I struggled with it, but in the 
end, I told him it is where the people decide how they are going to be 
governed; where the people make the decisions instead of the kings. I 
tried to break it down that way, as simply as possible; that it is not 
the kings, it is not the monarchs, it is not the elitist rulers that 
rule America, but that the people rule America.
  I read and was comforted greatly by a decision that came down in 
California a couple of days ago that addressed judicial activism, where 
the people were actually allowed to decide how the government was going 
to be run instead of one elitist judge. I will give my colleagues a 
little background.
  The California people decided that they did not want Americans to be 
judged on the color of their skin or whether they were a man or a woman 
but, instead, wanted people to be judged and hired based on the content 
of their character. So they passed a civil rights initiative. Five 
million Californians went out and voted on this measure and decided 
that they wanted to get rid of race-based hiring preferences.
  Well, despite the fact that five million people voted in California 
on this issue, a single judge, with a stroke of the pen, was able to 
nullify the will of five million voters. Five million Californians. 
Five million Americans.
  Now, that would be hard to explain to my son how we have a single 
judge making decisions for five million people instead of having the 
people make the decisions themselves. So I was very pleased yesterday 
when I saw that a three-judge panel actually overturned that single 
judicial activist judge and talked about how it was inherently 
undemocratic that the will of five million people could be erased with 
a single stroke of one judge's pen.
  I certainly support the three-judge panel, and I just want to say to 
my fellow Members here, and others, Mr. Speaker, that it is important 
for us to start asking some very tough questions about these activist 
judges that believe they can thwart the will of Americans and democracy 
and just be a judicial activist.
  What we have to do is measure their rights as judges with the rights 
of us to be run by the will of the people, and also look at the 
separation of powers to see how judicial activism is threatening 
democracy.
  The whip said he had been attacked for discussing judicial activism, 
and I have read a lot of things that were said about him. They were 
saying that, and we heard it, that it was undemocratic for somebody to 
talk about judicial activism this way; that it was a threat to 
democracy and that it was radical.
  I would just ask the question: Who is the real radical? Who is the 
real radical? Do we call somebody a radical for questioning why judges 
are running America in some areas instead of the people; or is the real 
radical the single judge that with a stroke of his pen eliminates the 
will of five million registered voters?
  I would say the real radical, the person who is the real threat to 
democracy, is that Federal judge who does not examine what the original 
intent of our Framers was when talking about the separation of power; 
the real radical is that single judge who decides that he or she is 
going to ignore the overwhelming will of the American people and, 
instead, legislate from the bench.
  It is very dangerous. It has been dangerous for 30 years. It has led 
us to some very disturbing decisions across the land, and it is time 
that we just start asking basic simple questions about what do we do to 
once again take a measured approach in figuring out how to protect 
Americans from judicial activism and how to make sure that the genius 
of America and the genius of democracy and the genius of the separation 
of powers is preserved for the next century.

                          ____________________