Mark Levin brilliant and prolific in his posts today on NRO Corner...must reads

NRO Corner ^

[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

[b4its2late]

Good job.

[goldstategop]

Its not just about Terri Schiavo. She's not just a Poster Child for the Right To Life; she's become a Poster Child for reining in our Out Of Control Judiciary.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[tomahawk]

The judiciary has run amok, and is now tyrannical.

Depriving us of our rights to rule ourselves, enact laws, even protect the weak among us.

It is pure tyranny.

We must take our country back from the judges, or our entire system of government will be euthanized.

[denydenydeny]

Wow.

I love this guy.

[StonyBurk]

What I wonder is WHY these mere politicians act as if the Courts alone can dictate what must be done. AN intervention by the Gov. that is nothing more than a query
is not much intervention. Wallace intervened by sending in the National Gaurd. Did not work well as I recall but certainly went further than what Jeb Bush has done so far.
But I guess the play ain't over until Terri dies and America
forgets and /or decides we like being sodomized by the unjust Judges.

[Uncledave]

God forbid, if Terri should die from this, she will be a patrol saint for popular support for getting control of the Judiciary. The Judiciary didn't see the land mine they were stepping on with this one. This will hit home with more people than the 9th Circuit's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. In this case, an innocent is being rushed to a terrible death by people with dubious motives.

[Repub4bush]

Wow. I love this guy. Dittos! Mark is awesome! His new book is right on the money!

[Uncledave]

What I wonder is WHY these mere politicians act as if the Courts alone can dictate what must be done

I suspect the reason is that elected officials have been conditioned over the decades to fear liberal forces (MSM, academia, ACLU) when it comes to confronting the judiciary.

[jwalburg]

Nicely put.

[garbanzo]

she's become a Poster Child for reining in our Out Of Control Judiciary.

Agreed. And that's more or less my only interest in the issue - that we're becoming more like Iran where the elected parliament can make law only subject to the approval of the Supreme Council.

[dufekin]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, inscribed into our national consciousness, that we tolerate the existence of Government primarily to preserve the inalienable Right to Life (Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness...property too), with which our Creator endowed every one of us. Perhaps we the People should exercise our solemn Right to alter and to abolish our Form of Government, which has become destructive to these ends, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us seems most likely to effect our collective Safety and Happiness against the throes of a Death-Decree Judicial Tyranny.

[RoseofTexas]

Brace yourselves it's coming to a town near you! The courts will tell us who lives and who dies...Jeez, sounds much like the trains that deported Jewish families to concentration camps in those box cars and when they reached their destination the Nazi's separated the weak from the strong. The weak got the gas chamber and the strong got hard starving type labor work...SCARY CRAP!!

[pharmamom]

I wondered last night if God is using Terry's probable death as a galvanizing force for Life to confront the culture of death which our society is embracing. Perhaps this will inspire those of us who treasure life to work for real change--in the judiciary and in the legislative branch.

[jwalburg]

True. The same people who claimed Bush "rushed to war" are complaining about exploring every available option here, and seem in a big rush to end this woman's life.

[smoothsailing]

Clarity and Wisdom from The Great One.

I just finished his book,MEN IN BLACK, and have made it a permanent part of my library.

[Uncledave]

Great point.

[gopwinsin04]

Great minds think alike!

[stan_25]

As usual, Mark Levin has put his fingers right in the eyes of the liberal elite. He has become the voice that has started us to thinking that we must rein in the activist judges that are usurping their power.

People, we are at crossroads in this country and we must decide if we want the Judicary making our laws and having the Legislature rubberstamp them or put the Judicary back to where the framers meant for them to be. At the bottom of the ladder.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I love this guy.