Judge Griffith espouses the virtues of judicial neutrality in speech
Posted by: admin in NewsJudge Thomas B. Griffith of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit spoke at Valparaiso University School of Law on October 13 to a crowd of both law students and professors. Griffith presented his speech, “Was Bork Right: Can Federal Judges be Neutral?”, referring to Robert Bork, who was best known as the failed 1987 conservative Supreme Court nominee, a distinguished scholar of anti-trust law and a former D.C. Circuit Court judge.
Griffith was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush. Since accepting his commission, Griffith, who received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law, has presided over many cases that have made national headlines. In March of 2007, Griffith was a part of the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the District’s strict hand gun law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The decision subsequently grabbed headlines when it stated that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to bear arms as opposed to the collective right of a state militia. More recently, Griffith ruled against the Bush administration in the case of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim, being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, saying that the evidence against him was spurious.
In presenting his speech, Griffith argued Bork’s stance of judicial neutrality in which a federal judge, in order to uphold the freedoms of both the majority and the individual, must have a firm understanding of the scope of judicial power as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Instead of deciding cases that would advance outcomes that he or she believes desirable, a judge must apply the law as it is written. Anything less, would be an abuse of power that would make the judiciary a “naked power organ.”
“Sometimes the values chosen by the American people and expressed in law is flat out wrong,” Griffith explained. “Sometimes it is not just, sometimes it is not fair, but is not the role of the judge to correct the faults of the American people.”
Griffith peppered his talk, which lasted for about 40 minutes, with stories of his own experience on the bench, as well as quotes from a plethora of historical sources, all of which he tied into the central theme of judicial neutrality. He also at one point he entertained the audience by acting out a scene from Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man for All Seasons.”
In concluding his talk, Griffith answered the question that his talk set out to answer. “I believe Judge Bork is right, judges must be neutral. Otherwise, the system of democratic governance fails.”
The talk became contentious during the question and answer session when numerous professors took Griffith’s speech to task. Griffith with good humor, however, held firm to his opinion.
“The American people have made their value choices and expressed them into law,” he claimed. “My job as a judge is to use all the skill I can muster and apply that value choice to the dispute before me. If I use my own contrary views – what is right, what is wrong, what is just – I undermine the careful law making process of the constitution.”
David is a 1L and can be reached at forum@valpo.edu
Entries (RSS)