The Honorable Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-230 Capitol Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
VIA FACSIMILE 202.228.1264
April 15, 2005
Dear Senator Frist:
I write to express our serious concern about recent statements by certain Members
of Congress that could threaten the safety of judges, undermine their independence,
and impugn their integrity. We hope that you share our belief that an independent
judiciary is a critical component of a democratic society and will join us in urging
that Members of Congress refrain from making further statements of this nature.
I am referring in particular to recent comments attributed to House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay and to Senator John Cornyn. Earlier this week, Representative DeLay,
in the course of apologizing for an earlier statement that appeared to threaten
judges who had made rulings with which he disagreed in the Terri Schiavo case,
went on to state: “We set the jurisdiction of the courts. We set up the courts. We
can unset the courts.” Senator Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor last week,
complained about judges who “are making political decisions yet are
unaccountable to the public.” He then observed that frustration “builds up and
builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.”
These comments are particularly disturbing because they come at a time when
members of the federal judiciary and their families have been the targets of violent
attacks. The careless words of Members of Congress may be interpreted by some
to condone attacks. While difficult legal cases, whether civil or criminal in nature,
will invariably provoke strong reactions from various sectors of society, it is vital
that the independence of the judges deciding such cases is fully respected. Our
political and legal system is based on a core belief in, and established importance
of, the separation of powers.
Senator Frist
Page 1 of 3
April 15, 2005
Page Two
This tradition is in turn reflected in accepted international standards. As Basic Principle 2 on the
Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly twenty years ago,
makes clear, judges should:
“…decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law,
without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Statements to the contrary by Members of the United States Congress can do great harm to the
leadership position of this country with respect to promoting and safeguarding judicial independence
and respect for the rule of law around the world. In our work at Human Rights First promoting global
respect for international human rights standards we are only too familiar with the consequences for
judges and for other defenders of human rights in the countries concerned when governments fail to
respect the independence of the judiciary.
We have seen judges, like Mokhtar Yahyaoui from Tunisia, removed from the bench for criticizing
interference from the executive branch in judicial decision making. Judge Yahyaoui’s nephew was
imprisoned in apparent reprisal for the Judge’s refusal to withdraw his criticism. The U.S. Department
of State’s 2004 country reports on human rights practices notes with respect to Tunisia: “The
Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch and the President
strongly influenced judicial decisions, particularly in political cases.” Absent the safeguard provided by
an independent judiciary the Tunisian people will continue to suffer from severe restrictions on their
basic rights and freedoms.
In Zimbabwe, Judge Fergus Blackie, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, was sent to prison for
sentencing the Minister of Justice to a prison term for contempt of court. The imprisonment of Judge
Blackie was just one step in a systematic campaign by the government of President Robert Mugabe to
undermine what was once one of the most accomplished and independent judiciaries in Africa. The
State Department’s report states that despite the constitutional provision for an independent judiciary, in
reality “the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the
Government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions.” As noted in that report and elsewhere,
the disastrous consequences for the Zimbabwean people of the government’s assault on the rule of law
continue to unfold.
Fundamental human rights principles are designed to defend the right of every person in a cause
affecting them to be heard by an independent, neutral, and unbiased judge. Our own Declaration of
Independence listed amongst the grievances against King George III that "He has made judges
dependant on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices ...". Core constitutional principles, and
decisions based
Page 2 of 3
Senator Frist
April 15, 2005
Page Three
on those, uphold the promise of judicial independence. This core value is also guaranteed in
international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, political pressure, applied with a measure of menace, to secure particular results from sitting
judges, undermines the principle of independent, neutral, and impartial justice according to law. It is no
more to be tolerated where the brutality is verbal than where it is physical.
In view of the centrality of the principle of respect for an independent judiciary to the basic rights and
freedoms we expect as American citizens, we urge you to take the lead in pushing for prompt
introduction and enactment of a resolution underscoring support for an independent judiciary – one
immune from attacks and improper interferences by members of the legislative or executive branches of
government, or from any other quarter.
We stand ready to discuss our concerns and this proposal with you at your convenience, and would
greatly appreciate receiving your views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Posner
Executive Director
Human Rights First
Page 3 of 3
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
VIA FACSIMILE 202.226.1996
April 15, 2005
Dear Speaker Hastert:
I write to express our serious concern about recent statements by certain Members
of Congress that could threaten the safety of judges, undermine their independence,
and impugn their integrity. We hope that you share our belief that an independent
judiciary is a critical component of a democratic society and will join us in urging
that Members of Congress refrain from making further statements of this nature.
I am referring in particular to recent comments attributed to House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay and to Senator John Cornyn. Earlier this week, Representative DeLay,
in the course of apologizing for an earlier statement that appeared to threaten
judges who had made rulings with which he disagreed in the Terri Schiavo case,
went on to state: “We set the jurisdiction of the courts. We set up the courts. We
can unset the courts.” Senator Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor last week,
complained about judges who “are making political decisions yet are
unaccountable to the public.” He then observed that frustration “builds up and
builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.”
These comments are particularly disturbing because they come at a time when
members of the federal judiciary and their families have been the targets of violent
attacks. The careless words of Members of Congress may be interpreted by some
to condone attacks. While difficult legal cases, whether civil or criminal in nature,
will invariably provoke strong reactions from various sectors of society, it is vital
that the independence of the judges deciding such cases is fully respected. Our
political and legal system is based on a core belief in, and established importance
of, the separation of powers.
Speaker Hastert
Page 1 of 3
April 15, 2005
Page Two
This tradition is in turn reflected in accepted international standards. As Basic Principle 2 on the
Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly twenty years ago,
makes clear, judges should:
“…decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law,
without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Statements to the contrary by Members of the United States Congress can do great harm to the
leadership position of this country with respect to promoting and safeguarding judicial independence
and respect for the rule of law around the world. In our work at Human Rights First promoting global
respect for international human rights standards we are only too familiar with the consequences for
judges and for other defenders of human rights in the countries concerned when governments fail to
respect the independence of the judiciary.
We have seen judges, like Mokhtar Yahyaoui from Tunisia, removed from the bench for criticizing
interference from the executive branch in judicial decision making. Judge Yahyaoui’s nephew was
imprisoned in apparent reprisal for the Judge’s refusal to withdraw his criticism. The U.S. Department
of State’s 2004 country reports on human rights practices notes with respect to Tunisia: “The
Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch and the President
strongly influenced judicial decisions, particularly in political cases.” Absent the safeguard provided by
an independent judiciary the Tunisian people will continue to suffer from severe restrictions on their
basic rights and freedoms.
In Zimbabwe, Judge Fergus Blackie, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, was sent to prison for
sentencing the Minister of Justice to a prison term for contempt of court. The imprisonment of Judge
Blackie was just one step in a systematic campaign by the government of President Robert Mugabe to
undermine what was once one of the most accomplished and independent judiciaries in Africa. The
State Department’s report states that despite the constitutional provision for an independent judiciary, in
reality “the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the
Government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions.” As noted in that report and elsewhere,
the disastrous consequences for the Zimbabwean people of the government’s assault on the rule of law
continue to unfold.
Fundamental human rights principles are designed to defend the right of every person in a cause
affecting them to be heard by an independent, neutral, and unbiased judge. Our own Declaration of
Independence listed amongst the grievances against King George III that "He has made judges
dependant on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices ...". Core constitutional principles, and
decisions based
Page 2 of 3
Speaker Hastert
April 15, 2005
Page Three
on those, uphold the promise of judicial independence. This core value is also guaranteed in
international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, political pressure, applied with a measure of menace, to secure particular results from sitting
judges, undermines the principle of independent, neutral, and impartial justice according to law. It is no
more to be tolerated where the brutality is verbal than where it is physical.
In view of the centrality of the principle of respect for an independent judiciary to the basic rights and
freedoms we expect as American citizens, we urge you to take the lead in pushing for prompt
introduction and enactment of a resolution underscoring support for an independent judiciary – one
immune from attacks and improper interferences by members of the legislative or executive branches of
government, or from any other quarter.
We stand ready to discuss our concerns and this proposal with you at your convenience, and would
greatly appreciate receiving your views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Posner
Executive Director
Human Rights First
Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives
H-204 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
VIA FACSIMILE 202.225.4188
April 15, 2005
Dear Representative Pelosi:
I write to express our serious concern about recent statements by certain Members
of Congress that could threaten the safety of judges, undermine their independence,
and impugn their integrity. We hope that you share our belief that an independent
judiciary is a critical component of a democratic society and will join us in urging
that Members of Congress refrain from making further statements of this nature.
I am referring in particular to recent comments attributed to House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay and to Senator John Cornyn. Earlier this week, Representative DeLay,
in the course of apologizing for an earlier statement that appeared to threaten
judges who had made rulings with which he disagreed in the Terri Schiavo case,
went on to state: “We set the jurisdiction of the courts. We set up the courts. We
can unset the courts.” Senator Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor last week,
complained about judges who “are making political decisions yet are
unaccountable to the public.” He then observed that frustration “builds up and
builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.”
These comments are particularly disturbing because they come at a time when
members of the federal judiciary and their families have been the targets of violent
attacks. The careless words of Members of Congress may be interpreted by some
to condone attacks. While difficult legal cases, whether civil or criminal in nature,
will invariably provoke strong reactions from various sectors of society, it is vital
that the independence of the judges deciding such cases is fully respected. Our
political and legal system is based on a core belief in, and established importance
of, the separation of powers.
Representative Pelosi
Page 1 of 3
April 15, 2005
Page Two
This tradition is in turn reflected in accepted international standards. As Basic Principle 2 on the
Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly twenty years ago,
makes clear, judges should:
“…decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law,
without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Statements to the contrary by Members of the United States Congress can do great harm to the
leadership position of this country with respect to promoting and safeguarding judicial independence
and respect for the rule of law around the world. In our work at Human Rights First promoting global
respect for international human rights standards we are only too familiar with the consequences for
judges and for other defenders of human rights in the countries concerned when governments fail to
respect the independence of the judiciary.
We have seen judges, like Mokhtar Yahyaoui from Tunisia, removed from the bench for criticizing
interference from the executive branch in judicial decision making. Judge Yahyaoui’s nephew was
imprisoned in apparent reprisal for the Judge’s refusal to withdraw his criticism. The U.S. Department
of State’s 2004 country reports on human rights practices notes with respect to Tunisia: “The
Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch and the President
strongly influenced judicial decisions, particularly in political cases.” Absent the safeguard provided by
an independent judiciary the Tunisian people will continue to suffer from severe restrictions on their
basic rights and freedoms.
In Zimbabwe, Judge Fergus Blackie, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, was sent to prison for
sentencing the Minister of Justice to a prison term for contempt of court. The imprisonment of Judge
Blackie was just one step in a systematic campaign by the government of President Robert Mugabe to
undermine what was once one of the most accomplished and independent judiciaries in Africa. The
State Department’s report states that despite the constitutional provision for an independent judiciary, in
reality “the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the
Government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions.” As noted in that report and elsewhere,
the disastrous consequences for the Zimbabwean people of the government’s assault on the rule of law
continue to unfold.
Fundamental human rights principles are designed to defend the right of every person in a cause
affecting them to be heard by an independent, neutral, and unbiased judge. Our own Declaration of
Independence listed amongst the grievances against King George III that "He has made judges
dependant on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices ...". Core constitutional principles, and
decisions based
Page 2 of 3
Representative Pelosi
April 15, 2005
Page Three
on those, uphold the promise of judicial independence. This core value is also guaranteed in
international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, political pressure, applied with a measure of menace, to secure particular results from sitting
judges, undermines the principle of independent, neutral, and impartial justice according to law. It is no
more to be tolerated where the brutality is verbal than where it is physical.
In view of the centrality of the principle of respect for an independent judiciary to the basic rights and
freedoms we expect as American citizens, we urge you to take the lead in pushing for prompt
introduction and enactment of a resolution underscoring support for an independent judiciary – one
immune from attacks and improper interferences by members of the legislative or executive branches of
government, or from any other quarter.
We stand ready to discuss our concerns and this proposal with you at your convenience, and would
greatly appreciate receiving your views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Posner
Executive Director
Human Rights First
Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader
United States Senate
S-221 Capitol Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
VIA FACSIMILE 202.224.7362
April 15, 2005
Dear Senator Reid:
I write to express our serious concern about recent statements by certain Members
of Congress that could threaten the safety of judges, undermine their independence,
and impugn their integrity. We hope that you share our belief that an independent
judiciary is a critical component of a democratic society and will join us in urging
that Members of Congress refrain from making further statements of this nature.
I am referring in particular to recent comments attributed to House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay and to Senator John Cornyn. Earlier this week, Representative DeLay,
in the course of apologizing for an earlier statement that appeared to threaten
judges who had made rulings with which he disagreed in the Terri Schiavo case,
went on to state: “We set the jurisdiction of the courts. We set up the courts. We
can unset the courts.” Senator Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor last week,
complained about judges who “are making political decisions yet are
unaccountable to the public.” He then observed that frustration “builds up and
builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.”
These comments are particularly disturbing because they come at a time when
members of the federal judiciary and their families have been the targets of violent
attacks. The careless words of Members of Congress may be interpreted by some
to condone attacks. While difficult legal cases, whether civil or criminal in nature,
will invariably provoke strong reactions from various sectors of society, it is vital
that the independence of the judges deciding such cases is fully respected. Our
political and legal system is based on a core belief in, and established importance
of, the separation of powers.
Senator Reid
Page 1 of 3
April 15, 2005
Page Two
This tradition is in turn reflected in accepted international standards. As Basic Principle 2 on the
Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly twenty years ago,
makes clear, judges should:
“…decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law,
without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Statements to the contrary by Members of the United States Congress can do great harm to the
leadership position of this country with respect to promoting and safeguarding judicial independence
and respect for the rule of law around the world. In our work at Human Rights First promoting global
respect for international human rights standards we are only too familiar with the consequences for
judges and for other defenders of human rights in the countries concerned when governments fail to
respect the independence of the judiciary.
We have seen judges, like Mokhtar Yahyaoui from Tunisia, removed from the bench for criticizing
interference from the executive branch in judicial decision making. Judge Yahyaoui’s nephew was
imprisoned in apparent reprisal for the Judge’s refusal to withdraw his criticism. The U.S. Department
of State’s 2004 country reports on human rights practices notes with respect to Tunisia: “The
Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch and the President
strongly influenced judicial decisions, particularly in political cases.” Absent the safeguard provided by
an independent judiciary the Tunisian people will continue to suffer from severe restrictions on their
basic rights and freedoms.
In Zimbabwe, Judge Fergus Blackie, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, was sent to prison for
sentencing the Minister of Justice to a prison term for contempt of court. The imprisonment of Judge
Blackie was just one step in a systematic campaign by the government of President Robert Mugabe to
undermine what was once one of the most accomplished and independent judiciaries in Africa. The
State Department’s report states that despite the constitutional provision for an independent judiciary, in
reality “the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the
Government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions.” As noted in that report and elsewhere,
the disastrous consequences for the Zimbabwean people of the government’s assault on the rule of law
continue to unfold.
Fundamental human rights principles are designed to defend the right of every person in a cause
affecting them to be heard by an independent, neutral, and unbiased judge. Our own Declaration of
Independence listed amongst the grievances against King George III that "He has made judges
dependant on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices ...". Core constitutional principles, and
decisions based
Page 2 of 3
Senator Reid
April 15, 2005
Page Three
on those, uphold the promise of judicial independence. This core value is also guaranteed in
international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, political pressure, applied with a measure of menace, to secure particular results from sitting
judges, undermines the principle of independent, neutral, and impartial justice according to law. It is no
more to be tolerated where the brutality is verbal than where it is physical.
In view of the centrality of the principle of respect for an independent judiciary to the basic rights and
freedoms we expect as American citizens, we urge you to take the lead in pushing for prompt
introduction and enactment of a resolution underscoring support for an independent judiciary – one
immune from attacks and improper interferences by members of the legislative or executive branches of
government, or from any other quarter.
We stand ready to discuss our concerns and this proposal with you at your convenience, and would
greatly appreciate receiving your views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Posner
Executive Director
Human Rights First
Page 3 of 3