Justice

Judicial Activism

There is a growing tendency of federal courts to inject ideology into their decisions instead of applying the law. Recent decisions that chip away at our religious heritage are especially troubling.

Several pieces of legislation are pending in Congress that would address Americans' rights to religious expression. One measure seeks to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts and prohibit them from addressing cases regarding religious freedoms. I support this legislation as a way to protect religious liberty from overzealous courts. In addition, another bill, the Pledge and Prayer Amendment, seeks to reign in activist judges by prohibiting courts from interfering in matters regarding the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or the national motto. I am a cosponsor of this bill and will support any legislation that will protect the religious freedoms of American citizens.

I am a sponsor of H.R. 3073, the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism bill. This legislation would allow Congress, by a two-thirds vote, to override certain future decisions of the Supreme Court. I feel that it is Congress, the representative branch of the government, which best represents the will of the American people.

Private Property Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court vastly broadened the cases under which private land can be seized in the June 2005 ruling Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. In this contentious decision, the Court ruled that local governments may seize private property for private economic development that seeks to improve the public good. Previously, private land could only be seized under eminent domain for a specific public use.

This ruling went too far and infringes on the rights of private landowners. I was a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 340, a resolution to condemn the Supreme Court for this decision. The non-binding resolution passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30, 2005 by a vote of 365 - 33. I am hopeful that steps can be taken to protect the rights of private property owners and reverse this flawed ruling.