Posted on 03/30/2005 5:22:03 PM PST by Crackingham
I assume his whole remarks make more sense than this paraphrase.
Congress is specifically empowered to determine the federal courts' "discretion" as it did in this case.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --Lord Acton
There is a reason that the Constitution was not designed to empower judges as legislators for life as they now are...
This judge is 100% correct in this instance . You may not like what he says but he is right. At times Judges decisions make law when they are not supposed to. In this instance the Congress took it upon themselves to attempt to over rule a Judicial decision they shouldnt have.
He argues the point at some length, finally concluding — if I may paraphrase — that developed procedure must be maintained even if innocents must die. Say this for Birch: at least he had the courage to put in writing what the rest of them have been doing. |
Which ones? Surely not the Anti-federalists.
Birch said he couldn't countenance Congress' attempt to "rob" federal courts of the discretion they're given in the Constitution.
Where in the constitution were you GIVEN it? Don't tell me "precedent" either.
GET ON YOUR KNEES AND BOW BEFORE YOUR BLACK-ROBED MASTERS!!!
No one tells the JUDGES what to do. For them that's what this is really all about. Such arrogance. One more reason why Terri lies dying.
Give it a rest you gutless one - Jeb and GWB have done all they can (under the law and the constitution!) - They have handled this situation with leadership, compassion and class! - In fact they have done more for Terri than her OWN family has (with that despicable case they put forward early on in this whole mess).
What have you done big talker! - Go at least get arrested before you spout off with such drivel - Takes a big man (person) to call others spineless from the safety of a keyboard. You need to grow a sack!
Ping
A lot of truth in this statement (sadly).
too late for that
Those cops were disgusting how they handled that man - Police in this Country are becoming such a burden (more than a help).
If he thought the law was unconstitutional, he should have ruled as such, he didn't, he just bloviated about it. Arrogance on steroids
Judge Birch now argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case due to constitutional infirmities in the legislation enabling federal review of this case. In particular, he identifies four provisions of the act that “constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions.” Ante, at 9. I believe that it is fully within Congress’s power to dictate standards of review and to waive in specific cases nonconstitutional abstention doctrines. Indeed, if Congress cannot do so, the fate of hundreds of federal statutes would be called into serious question. I wish to dispel any questions about our jurisdiction in this case. Under Article III, Congress has the power both to establish federal courts and, except as to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to make exceptions and regulations as to their jurisdiction. U.S. Const. art. III. The Supreme Court has recognized, at least in some contexts, that Congress also has the power to require federal courts to entertain causes of action they would not otherwise have entertained for prudential reasons. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 820 n.3 (1997) (“It is settled that Congress cannot erase Article III’s standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing. . . . We acknowledge, though, that Congress’ decision to grant a particular plaintiff the right to challenge an Act’s constitutionality . . . eliminates any prudential standing limitations and significantly lessens the risk of unwanted conflict with the Legislative Branch when that plaintiff brings suit.” (citation omitted)). This is not a case, to use separation-of-powers parlance, of Congress “arrogating” power to itself, nor is it a case in which one branch of government has “impair[ed] another in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996) (emphasis added). Instead, Congress has prescribed a particular approach to a particular problem in the general domain of federal jurisdiction, without presuming to dictate—in any respect—our performance of a court’s essential function: “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.). It is in this domain that the Supreme Court has jealously guarded our power against intrusion by Congress. See, e.g., Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432 (2000) (“We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.”). Here, Congress has attempted only what has long been established to be within its power to dictate: our standard of review, the effect of a prior state court judgment on that review, the application of prudential abstention doctrines, and the effect of exhaustion requirements. I know of no case barring Congress from 8 so dictating, and Judge Birch does not cite any. Indeed, quite to the contrary, Judge Birch cites cases establishing that both our abstention and exhaustion doctrines are prudential. See ante, at 10. If none of these dictates by itself goes beyond Congress’s power to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts, I know of no doctrine that could convert their aggregation into a separation-of-powers violation. |
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Guess its time for all judges to take a literary test. Oh I forgot, Judge Greer is blind just like the justice he dispenses!"
It doesn't say the state can't deprive any person of life, just without due process of law.
Many would conclude that due process was followed. Courts appointed doctors, and many courts and judges have withheld the original court's position.
Just because you don't agree with the results, doesn't prove "due process" was not followed.
And my Country has scant hope for you.
Well, when you speak for the whole country, I guess you must be a judge yourself, huh?
What you have here is less than you imagine. Many jurists, in an attempt to be able to maintain impartiality, and to focus on the "facts" as they might be presented in court, give up reading newspapers, magazines, or watching TV news. This Birch guy and his gumbahs elsewhere probably have no idea what is going on in the public arena where ideas are debated and names called.
Judge Greer is pretty much cut of the same cloth and the fact that the Sheriff thought he needed some personal protection might well have surprised him.
It would be interesting to interview Birch, Greer and these other characters to see just what they know about what the rest of us think of them.
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.
I read Birch's opinion. He argues that the law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, and that therefore the federal courts have no jurisdiction in this matter.