Posted on 03/19/2005 10:34:35 AM PST by Uncledave
First post by KJL citing a piece in ChiTrib from some law professor...then responses from Levin.
Some other posts today from Levin below that on the subject of Legislative vs. Judicial powers.
HERE WE ARE [K. J. Lopez] Cover for the feminist Left for not being a defender of the rights of Terri Schiavo: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503190165mar19,1,6639786.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Marc Spindelman, a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University who specializes in bioethics, said the message sent by the subpoenas is chilling.
"What's next? If Congress doesn't like it, are they going to subpoena individual women to testify before Congress in order to keep them from exercising their rights to an abortion?" he said. "What about individuals who want to terminate a respirator? Is Congress going to bring them in and start asking them questions? Who couldn't be dissuaded from exercising their constitutional rights in certain ways in the face of a federal subpoena? The spectacle of this--it's unbelievable."
***********
RE: RE: HERE WE ARE [Mark R. Levin] This is a typical slippery slope argument, applied only to Congress but not to the judiciary. I could ask, for instance: what next, will judges, on the word of a putative spouse, deny nutrition to alzheimer patients who, on their own, would surely die of starvation? And what of the standard of proof and evidence? There's nothing in writing here, no living will, no witnesses -- just heresay. Is that the standard judges will now use, and if they can use this standard on a matter of life and death, what about wills, trust, estates? Are they all to be decided now based on oral, unwitnessed representations?
***********
AND WHAT'S TO STOP CONGRESS FROM... [Mark R. Levin] And what's to stop Congress from calling women who might seek abortions? Well, what's to stop Congress from doing anything stupid or outrageous? We, the people. Even those who oppose abortion would likely react very negatively to such a spectacle. Congress has called witnessed who've had abortions who regret having had the procedure and others who've argued against prohibiting, for instance, partial birth abortion. This has been done without exploitation or abuse. But the question the critics of the House refuse to ask and answer is who or what can check a judiciary that, more and more, is making policy decisions? If not Congress, than no one. And in many cases, I expect that's perfectly fine by them.
***********
IT’S THE JUDGES, STUPID [Mark R. Levin] I see this more as a struggle between the elected branches and the judiciary. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush did, in fact, attempt to intervene in the Schiavo case a few years back, and prevent the removal of her feeding tube. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the governor had no such power. Yesterday, Florida Superior Court Judge Greer, in essence, said the same about congressional authority. He quickly dismissed the relevance of the House subpoenas with this statement: "I have had no cogent reason why the committee should intervene." The state judge, therefore, contended that the House had to convince him of the legitimacy of its subpoena to compel witnesses to appear so it can conduct hearings. I've heard nothing from academia about this stunning judicial assertion.
As the courts continue to usurp the policy- and law-making power of the elected branches, and offend an ever-growing number of Americans and their representatives, we can expect the tension between the elected branches and the judiciary to grow. The judges have no one to blame but themselves. In the eyes of many, they have pursued a course that delegitimizes their institution and calls into question their motives. And while the courts set themselves up as the final arbiters of all conflicts between themselves and the other branches, at least the House, in this first test of constitutional wills, does not appear ready to surrender. After all, if it won't protect its own constitutional prerogatives, who will?
The more the House resists judicial usurpation, the more unhinged its critics in academia and the mainstream media will become -- accusing it of politicizing the independent judiciary, intimidating judges, and so forth. The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the means by which the Left has been most successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society. They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominations, including the unconstitutional use of filibusters in the Senate, and they will be equally zealous in the House.
***********
A ROLE FOR CONGRESS [Mark R. Levin] No one questions the power of Congress to issue subpoenas to pursue its core function, i.e., to conduct hearings and investigate issues where there might be a legislative purpose. And clearly, in this case, Congress is genuinely interested in taking up the issue of protecting disabled and incapacitated people. And Congress is certainly free to use the most widely known example of court-ordered starvation as a basis for its inquiry. If its purpose is also to save from starvation the person at the center of its inquiry, that's perfectly legitimate as well.
And when Congress issues subpoenas, they are to be honored by the recipients, or they face possible prosecution for contempt of Congress. Compliance with congressional subpoenas is every bit as critical to maintaining the rule of law under our constitutional system as is compliance with a court order. And a state trial judge is not free to blithely dismiss such congressional action, whether he agrees with it or not. He stands in the same shoes as others in this regard, i.e., he cannot take affirmative steps to contravene a congressional subpoena. Even if one wishes to descend into some kind of balancing test, the state trial judge could have easily prevented a constitutional confrontation by delaying his order until Congress could at least conduct hearings, thereby ensuring that the authority of both branches of government were not offended. Instead, the state trial judge did what too many judges do, i.e., he vetoed a decision or action by Congress. The mainstream media will ignore this aspect of what has occurred, as it already has, preferring to regurgitate the shrill accusations of academics and lawyers who worship before the bench. Posted at 10:53 AM
Nominate Levin for the Supreme Court
Talking point:
HEARSAY,HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY!!!!!!
Why do we never hear this on the media?
If a fricking judge can thumb his nose at Congress then the citizens should be able to thumb their noses at any order issued by that judge.
As far as taking the country back from the judges, that shouldn't be too difficult. After all there are a hell of a lot more of us than these little black robed tin horn dictators ;-)
Our court system is based on the Jewish Sanhedrin, and our country is built on Judeo-Christian morals. The first tenet of these morals, Judaically, is to Choose Life.
This case does not have a living will which states "Should I become brain-damaged, at some point pull out my feeding tube and let me starve to death."
Spouses should not have the final say. They are always the first suspects in someone's murder. If there is no Living Will that clearly states, not only DNR decisions but also at what point the individual would like to be starved and dehydrated, then we have to as a country Choose Life for that person.
If our courts come down on the side of allowing others to aid or abet medical decisions to promote death, we lower ourselves morally as a country. The fear of elderly Dutch who try to avoid hospitalization when they need medical care is real. Their society has told them that they are a useless burden, and so many of them have been put to death like dogs.
If we as a nation choose to respect the life of all innocents, even those who cannot speak for themselves, it only raises us as a country. Without explicit instructions, I daresay we need a federal ruling to allow life to continue. But of course, this butts up against abortion laws.
Is that it?
Do people want Terri to die so that "Choose Life, IF It's Convenient To Others" is our motto?
Excellent, Mark. Keep up the good work you are doing.
I should think even the liberals in congress would be up in arms about this. Some day they are going to want to subpoena a conservative witness to come before their committee. All that conservative has to do is find a friendly judge to say he doesn't see why that person has to appear. If this is allowed to stand, Congress has lost it's power to compel witnesses to testify.
Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham are the future of conservative talk radio. They both have the Limbaughesque ability to deliver conservative arguements with an acerbic wit.
Hannity is an intellectual piker by comparison
Outstanding. The line in the sand has been drawn. Bring it on.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
BTTT
How true. Trust Levin to tell it the way it is, I love the guy.
Of course if this was a Democrat controlled Congress issuing a subpoena to a conservative judge in order to stop him or her from blocking a "mercy killing", i.e., murder, or an abortion, i.e., murder, the same unhinged critics in academia and media would be railing and foaming at the mouth in outrage, and calling for the judge's impeachment and subsequent imprisonment.
Hypocrisy, thy name is LIBERAL.
I think Levin no longer posts to free republic because of criticism of Hannity. (But I agree with you).
No, he aspires to rise to the level of intellectual piker. To be an intellectual piker one must first have an intellect. Sometimes Sean can be almost embarrassing to watch when he's matched against that rare liberal guest who actually knows what he or she is talking about.
As "they" would say in Texas, Hannity is all hat and no cattle IMHO. As I would say in Georgia, let's have more prime time media exposure for Mark Levin and less for Sean Hannity.
Correct-o-mundo. BTW, Did you know that Hannity has a book out now?
No, not every "intersection" of their lives--just those that involve life and death should involve a proper written document. Is this a situation where a husband faithfully carries out his wife's instructions, or another of the innumerable cases of spousal murder? Too bad that the legislative and judicial branches are working at cross purposes here.
Absolutely 100% certified correct & just to fire up the crowd that doesn't follow the lemmings in the "Two-Party Cartel" put Savage on the list.
Very interesting story - thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.