The Subcommittee will come to order.

Good morning. In the wake of yesterday's legislative hearing on H.R. 1252, we will now broaden our focus considerably by engaging in a more general and free-ranging discussion of judicial misconduct and discipline.

Beginning with the Warren Court of the late 1950's, members of the legal community, court watchers, and other interested Americans have grown increasingly critical of what they believe constitutes "judicial activism." Many, perhaps most, of these critics believe that the fundamental job of any jurist is to interpret the law and apply it impartially to the affected litigants in a given case. The worst thing a judge can do, assert these critics, is appropriate the role of a legislator by creating law; that is, by reading personally-held convictions of a social or political nature into a decision that is otherwise not founded on legislative intent or case law precedent.

The term "misconduct" is like a piece of abstract art: it means different things to different people. Gerald Ford once stated that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history ...." Others believe a judge may only be impeached for indictable offenses, and that critics of "activism" are simply disgruntled over the outcome of certain legal disputes about which reasonable men and women differ. Our witnesses today no doubt possess varying opinions on the subject. As a result, and given the controversy this issue generates, I look forward to all of the testimony we will receive today.

Judiciary Homepage