Sitting Judge Exposes 'Liberal Judicial Assault'

This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," January 2, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Personal story" segment tonight, there are some conservative judges in America. There are some, even though the liberal ones get most of the attention.

And now, one Missouri judge has written a book called "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault."

Well, that isn't going down real well with some liberals. And with us now, the author of the book, Judge Robert Dierker.

What is the headline of the book?

ROBERT DIERKER, JR., CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE: I think the twin themes of the book fundamentally are there is an agenda that is best described on the liberal side. You can use any number of terms. And I think you use secular progressives.

O'REILLY: Right.

DIERKER: But you have an agenda that is consciously and deliberately using the judiciary to promote itself and to suppress opposing viewpoints. And.

O'REILLY: Is this new?

DIERKER: I don't know that it's new. I think what is new is the increasing tendency of the courts to be called in to suppress the dissent. The publication of this book has drawn attacks to seek to remove me from office.

O'REILLY: Right. They don't like the fact — they say that you're now prejudicial toward any liberal cause that comes in.

But what I'm trying to get at is this. We talk a lot about liberal activism on the bench here. Is there conservative activism? We saw in the Ten Commandments down in Alabama where the chief justice of Alabama said, "Look, I'm going to defy federal law and I'm going to keep the Ten Commandments up. That was conservative activism.

But is there more liberal activism than conservative activism?

DIERKER: I think activism, almost by definition, goes on the liberal side. The conservatives to the extent that they react in an effort to limit or overrule illegitimate precedent are simply restoring the Constitution to where it was before it was rewritten by judges who feel that the text has no meaning and is subject to reinterpretation, rewriting, you know, at the moment.

O'REILLY: Missouri is a swing state. You know, it's not a conservative or a liberal state. Usually votes Republican. Would there be more liberal judges sitting in Missouri than conservative judges in your opinion?

DIERKER: Well, I think the only way I can answer is that is that John Ashcroft appointed me and then he left office in '92. Until Matt Blount was elected we had Democratic governors.

But I don't see it as a Democrat/Republican thing. In terms of more liberal judges in Missouri. I think to answer that, you know, I don't want to go into a criticism...

O'REILLY: What I'm trying to get at here is it throughout the United States more activism on the left just because of the sheer numbers?

DIERKER: No, I don't think it's sheer numbers. I think it's the position that the liberal judges are in, the Supreme Court of the United States. This is very much a top down phenomenon. If the appellate courts are promoting a specific agenda, then those of us like me who are the foot soldiers, you know, we play by the rules.

O'REILLY: So you really believe that there is a left wing agenda being promoted by the judiciary in this country?

DIERKER: Well, I think that it's being promoted through the judiciary and with, certainly if not the active initiation by judges, certainly the acquiescence and...

O'REILLY: They know it's happening? Any judge would know it was happening?

DIERKER: And I think its there's an endorsement in opinions that express a view that the judiciary has effectively no limits on its power, that the judiciary can impose taxes, that the judiciary can control...

O'REILLY: Gay marriage.

DIERKER: ... the conduct of the war, that the judiciary can dictate to the legislative body, you know, what marriage will be. You know, I think those things are going on. I think it's a philosophy that has permeated the judiciary to a degree that is very alarming.

O'REILLY: It is alarming, I think. Because once you take it from the folks and put it in to guys like you, even though you're a conservative judge, but judges themselves, and they start to make the laws, that's not the way it was set up.

DIERKER: Well that's not. And I think that — you talked about conservative activism. But, again, you know, I think that the belief that the Constitution has a meaning and that that meaning has to endure and control over generations is a very important one.

Because if you don't have that, if you don't have that dedication to that principal, then you don't have just judicial independence. You have judicial emporium. You have the judiciary...

O'REILLY: They run the country.

DIERKER: ... running the country.

O'REILLY: Not the folks through their elected officials.

All right, judge, good luck with the book. Very interesting. And we appreciate you coming on and talking about it with us tonight.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2007 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.