The Attorney General spoke today about the inferior abilities of federal judges to decide terrorism cases. In his address to a Washington think tank he said,"That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country."
When outlining criteria for selecting candidates to the federal bench, Attorney General Gonzales said,"We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the President in making policy judgments."
In a similar declaration,we have heard from the Bush administration that the President is better suited than the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] to decide when a wire tap should be placed on a suspected terrorist without a warrant.
It is the Judiciaries responsibility to interpret and apply the law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or imply that federal judges are expected to know what is in the best interests of national security. If judges are not equipped to rule on cases that involve national security, then the cases should not be brought before them. Special courts designed to hear such cases should be established.
To berate the courts for not being adequate in an area they are not supposed to be adequate in, does nothing to improve the situation, but does show that the Attorney General wants only those judges that will defer to the administration's concept of right and wrong in issues of national security. Given the administration's track record, I think we would be better served with another plan.