The sword of contempt has kept the judiciary away from searching public scrutiny, particularly within the mainstream media. The judiciary is obviously happy to live with this situation as well.
Having enjoyed enormous powers, including the power of contempt, without any accountability, the higher judiciary has over the years, trampled the toes of many persons and institutions, particularly the media.
Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself.
Just look at the Judiciary Committee, You have some people on the Judiciary Committee who may well decide not to send the nomination to the floor, and now it all depends on what Democrats do.
Bringing accountability to the judiciary must be preceded by frank public discussion and debate. Unfortunately that cannot get started with the threat of contempt looming over people.
If you believe that through putting the judiciary under political control you can make it a better judiciary, you are wrong, and you are violating your own obligations under European treaties.
Since when has the Congress become protector of judiciary? Do I have to remind how Indira Gandhi treat the judiciary when one verdict went against them? Rajeev Gandhi in 1988 almost brought the bill, and during that phase, how many cases were filed against the media? And their son and grandson is talking about press freedom.
The judiciary is the only institution in the country which remains totally unaccountable. There is no institution with disciplinary powers over the judiciary.
The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary cannot be the sole domain of a few members of the higher judiciary. This turf must be shared.
Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.
None of the constitutional, legal or other principles bars me from returning to the judiciary, since the judiciary remains independent if the actors remain independent and fair.
The Supreme Court's non-transparent attitude on the disclosure of assets is in line with the judiciary's steadfast refusal to allow any transparency in the matter of appointment of judges, or for that matter, in the judiciary as a whole.
If the state - and within the state, the judiciary particularly - harasses and undermines the Church , in any society the state undoes itself.
It is a fundamental principle that every institution must be accountable to an authority which is independent of that institution. Yet somehow, the judiciary has propagated a view that the judiciary can only be accountable to itself.
While the seeming independence of the federal judiciary has played a vital part in making its actions virtual Holy Writ for the bulk of the people, it is also and ever true that the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus and appointed by the executive and legislative branches.
I applaud the fact that the president has reached out to the members of Judiciary Committee. And I applaud... the fact that he has been meeting with members of the Judiciary Committee. He's been seeking out Republicans as well as Democrats.
Not wanting to suffer criticism, the judiciary has used its power of contempt to stifle criticism.