Mark Levin: It's the Judges, Stupid

National Review Magazine ^ | 3.20.05

[gopwinsin04]

I see this as a struggle between the elected branches of government and the judiciary.

The Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush did, in fact, attempt to intervene in the case a few years back, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the governor had no such power.

Yesterday, Florida Superior Court Judge Greer said the same thing about congressional authority.

The state judge contends that the House had to convince him of the legitimacy of its subpoena to compel witnesses so it can conduct hearings.

I've heard nothing from academia about this stunning assertion.

As the courts continue to usurp the policy and law making power of the elected branches of government, and offend an every growing amount of Americans and their representatives, we can expect the tension between the elected brances and the judiciary to escalate.

The judges have no one to blame but themselves. In the eyes of many, they have persued a course that delegitimizes their instiution and calls into question their motives.

And while the court set themselves up as the final arbiters of all conflict between themselves and other branches, at least in the House, in this first test of constitutional will, does not appear ready to surrender.

After all, if the Congress won't portect 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.

The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the only means by which the Left has been successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society.

They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obtruct President Bush's judicial moninations, and they will be equally as zealous in the House.

[gopwinsin04]

The great one echoes the march on the judiciary at FR!

[bjs1779]

Do we really need a congress any longer? The judges tell them what to do anyway. We can save a lot of money by getting rid of the middleman.

[Servant of the 9]

Removing the feeding tube is not going to interfere with her apearance before Congress. She won't die that quickly, thus no contempt.

SO9

[goldstategop]

We need to abolish judicial review and get judges out of the business of deciding policy issues altogether.

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

[Lux-In-Domino]

Thanks for the post. These liberal judges are making me sick! All they need is put on a turban and grow long beards, and they will be no different from the mullahs of Iran. Disgusting!

[bjs1779]

She won't die that quickly, thus no contempt.

You are welcome to prove that by going without food or water yourself in the meantime.

[CurlyBill]

The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the only means by which the Left has been successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society.

This hits the nail squarely on the head!

[xzins]

The judiciary must be stopped.

[Fido969]

The Judiciary went off on its own within the last generation or so, it was quietly taken over by Legal Aid and environmental lawyers, soft-headed nitwits who went into the law in order to "make a difference", but couldn't quite make a living at the law.

It is vitally important that this round of judicial appointments be used to find and appoint judges who will simply serve the law, rather than their own political causes.

[llama hunter]

let me just state that as a conservative, this issue is one where my libertarian side is more prevalent, I don't believe the government should be interfering with this kind of thing beyond the scope of the law as it exists, and my understanding is that the spouse has the right to make these kinds of decisions, and a variety of courts and judges KEEP COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION!

if you don't like the law, go and change it for EVERYONE then, not on a piecemeal basis, not on a case by case basis or you are encouraging chaos

the reality is spouses and families make these kinds of decisions everyday and no one interferes....I am beginning to suspect this poor woman and her family are being used as political footballs...

and before you start railing on me, reverse the situation here

what if this were a Democratic Senate or House that was interfering with the decisions of judges, even right leaning judges if you will, who were making decisions based on the current legislation and caselaw huh, you name the issue, think about it real hard.....

if you allow the Senate and House to interfere with judicial decisions like this, you are setting a dangerous precedent that could backfire on Republicans themselves...

the Republicans would be up in arms, you can bet your bippy...

sorry for once I agree, this is governmental interference that is wrong and the judge was right to say so

[bigeasy_70118]

She won't die that quickly, thus no contempt. You are welcome to prove that by going without food or water yourself in the meantime.

The subpoena state that the feeding tube is not to be removed. Congress wants to inspect how she is kept alive. Therefore, Greer is in contempt.

I think there are some legitimacy problems with those subpoenas but that being said, Michael Schiavo never raised those issues in a federal court. Greer has no authority to determine whether the subpoenas are sufficient or not.

[nothingnew]

Mark must have been speed typing when he wrote this. I would have expected no spelling errors from a man of his stature.

That said, it is the battlefront for this Republic. The courts are creating law rather than interpreting law. This must be stopped.

FMCDH(BITS)

[noah]

WHOLESALE IMPEACHMENT of JUDGES. That's the solution. We need to compile a list of judges that have rendered ridiculus "legal" as opposed to commonsense decisions - decisions that have furthured a liberal political agenda - AND IMPEACH THEM. Maybe this should be done EVERY MONTH.

[Borges]

How does that jive with their Article III though? If the courts don't interpret the law then what would do they do?

[bjs1779]

WHOLESALE IMPEACHMENT of JUDGES. That's the solution. We need to compile a list of judges that have rendered ridiculus "legal" as opposed to commonsense decisions - decisions that have furthured a liberal political agenda - AND IMPEACH THEM. Maybe this should be done EVERY MONTH.

That is probably now unconstitutional. If not, they will make it so. It is just that easy anymore I'm afraid.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

what if this were a Democratic Senate or House that was interfering with the decisions of judges, even right leaning judges if you will, who were making decisions based on the current legislation and caselaw huh, you name the issue, think about it real hard.....

The rightness of the cause - life - is of course of primary importance.

But if the shoe were on the other foot, I would fully expect the Democrats to do the same thing full tilt.

The Democrats already did the "nuclear option" in the Senate in 1975 for example. After the Dixiecrat split had healed, which had been protected by a 67-vote cloture rule, the Democrats lowered the threshold to 60 votes as a bulwark against Republicans who often had 34 votes for filibusters but not 40.

The argument that if we don't do it, the Dems will show the same restraint is as misplaced now as it was in the Cold War dealing with the Russians.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

If the courts don't interpret the law then what would do they do?

They might try just applying it.

[FreedomSurge]

bump

[Borges]

To apply it you first have to interpret it. Antonin Scalia gave a talk earlier this week and he found nothing wrong with 'Marbury Vs. Madison' which he termed as just a plagiarism of Hamilton in The Federalist Papers.

[eccentric]

they will overdose her with morphine and kill her before she is ever seen