Activist Judges Become Rock Stars (The Maha Rushie On Meet Our New Kings Alert)

RUSH: Now, John Plecnik is a 21-year-old law student at Duke University, and he has written a piece. He writes for TheConservativeVoice.com, the Lincoln Tribune, a weekly newspaper in Lincolnton, North Carolina, and other places, and he's got a theory here on the usurpation of power by judges.

"Countless conservatives fear the quickening onset of judicial activism. Challenges that never would have passed the laugh test in days of yore are passing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to find sympathy from our Supreme Court. We all remember Michael Newdow, aptly named 'America’s least favorite atheist' by Time Magazine. The man had the hubris to charge that our Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, due to the inclusion of the phrase, 'under God.' While it is unremarkable that a wannabe Perry Mason would allege anything to argue before our nation’s highest court, the fact that Newdow got as far as he did is nothing less than an outrage. Why such irresponsibility? Why does the 9th Circuit revel in issuing ridiculous decisions, only to be overruled time, and time again? For that matter, why does our Supreme Court feel the need to constantly expand the reach of the federal judiciary? Is it simply a matter of ideology? No. Our top judges are more addicted to power and attention than Bill and Hillary Clinton combined. Today, influential, well-known judges are treated like rock stars. They tour America, giving a speech here, teaching a class there. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be visiting Duke Law at the end of January, and even our elite program is excited for her arrival." This is obviously a piece that was written awhile ago.

"I can still remember seeing a fellow classmate wearing an 'I love Ginsburg' T-shirt on Halloween. It was probably meant to be a joke, but law students and professors truly are judicial groupies. Instead of fan mail, we write law review articles analyzing the most controversial and edgy decisions. Screaming hoards of Dukies, Yalies, and Harvard lawyers compete for federal clerkships, hoping against hope for the chance to become a judge’s underpaid assistant. When the Supreme Court cites a scholarly article, the lucky professor practically swoons over the realization that one of the Supremes read her paper. The state of our profession is per se absurd. Self-deprecation aside, legal scholars are only part of the problem. When a mere trial court judge can make national news by attacking the Boy Scouts or declaring the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 unconstitutional, even moderate jurists will be tempted to get creative. Not to be outdone by the federal bench, state Supreme Courts have taken to the spotlight. The unforgettable decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to force their state Legislature to rewrite the law and legalize gay marriage is exhibit number one. Am I the only one left who still believes in three co-equal branches of government and the separation of powers? Judges ordering legislators to pass laws is as blatantly unconstitutional as congress writing court opinions.

"Another much-discussed state Supreme Court resides in Alabama, and owes its infamy to former Chief Justice Roy Moore. The Christian conservative insisted on displaying a monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of his courthouse. He ultimately defied a federal judge’s order to remove the piece at the cost of his robes. I wholeheartedly agree that the founding fathers would be livid to find their Establishment Clause being used to prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. However, I seriously doubt that we should incentivize judges, liberal or conservative, to flaunt the law as it stands. Notably, Roy Moore paid the price for his decision. He chose to ignore a federal judge and lost his job. What penalty has fallen on the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court for violating the separation of powers and legislating from the bench? What penalty, if any, do Supremes like Ginsburg fear? Unlike Massachusetts, where Justices are appointed by the governor, many state’s hold elections to fill their appellate courts. If elected judges want to act as quasi-legislators, at least voters can treat them as such. Unpopular courts can be fired and replaced. However, federal judges appointed pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution have life tenure during good behavior." And who set that up? Congress did! Congress set up the current structure of the courts. They have the right to change it whenever they want. People don't realize it even to this day.

"For sometime, congress has ignored the good behavior requirement. Even Supreme Court Justices can be removed from office through 'impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' If willfully usurping the power of another branch of government fails to meet the threshold for treason, then it certainly falls under the term of 'high Crime,' or 'Misdemeanor.' Should congress continue to allow unelected judges to rewrite our laws on whim, even moderate and conservative jurists will fall to the twin allures of power and fame. One controversial decision can earn a lifetime of notoriety. From the judge’s perspective, there is so much to gain and nothing to lose. As Americans, we have a choice. We can accept the current model of the rock star, activist judge and trade our Constitution for tickets to see the Supreme Court. Or, we can demand that congress impeach the law breakers." Because it's in there, folks. They can do it, they can impeach judges. The Constitution provides for it. Now, whether we've got the guts and the will to do it is another thing.

Now, I loved seeing this piece, this 21-year-old student from Duke, because the word is spreading. I mean the whole notion here that the judicial branch is usurping powers. You know, all the analysis of why is great, as long as it continues to focus people's attention on it. But this, today, to me is just the rock bottom. There's no other way to describe what happened today. The US judiciary forced the killing of an innocent American by virtue of torture. Two weeks of starvation and dehydration and resisted all efforts that were within the realm of the legal system, to just take one more look at it to save her life. It's just incredible that it has happened.

Meet our New Kings. The ones who ordered an innocent American starved to death. These judicial killers are being treated as the legal equivalent of rock stars. Who've set a new low in judicial activism. Something to be proud of, eh, America? Its just incredible what happened this month.

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

There's a meme going around that seems deceptive. Judges didn't kill Terri...Michael Schaivo killed Terri. The Judicial Branch of our goverment merely asserted that he had the legal right to do so....a disquieting enough thought. Wouldn't this be a more accurate way of stating the issue?

Pinellas county, Florida subhuman murderer Judgenfuhrer Greer:
"We, the [Scumbag Nazi] Judges of Florida RULE."

"WELCOME TO THE REAL AMERICA WHERE CRIMINALS GET TO BE
CELEBRITIES AND CELEBRITIES GET AWAY WITH MURDER."
"TO DIE FOR" Columbia Pictures

No, I disagree. Even now, individuals cannot act willfully and with purpose to take the life of another. That is murder still.

The life of a human being in the United States can be taken willfully only as a state sanctioned act.

The taking of Terri Schindler's life was sanctioned, authorized, and in fact required solely and specifically by Judge Greer and the rest of the judicial establishment.

I'm not exonerating Michael Schaivo. Far from it. But his act was not merely a private act undertaken with the blessings of the state. It was a defacto act of the state. It cannot be otherwise.

While I respect your position, I won't try to draw parallels between the state sanctioned killing of an adult human being and abortion.

I simply think there are too many points of distinction to make such an execise particularly useful.

Even now, individuals cannot act willfully and with purpose to take the life of another. That is murder still.

And the Jews took Jesus before Pilate and demanded Rome crucify Him. Pilate washed his hands, but it was his Roman legions that saw to it He was killed.

How is Terri's case different?

Actually it wasn't a bad question, either, and it got me thinking.

I think there is at least one point on which there is a difference. Judas "washed his hands" of the problem, leavinb Jusus to the Jews (even if the Roman soldiers did then act at the direction of the local government) - but Judge Greer actively inserted himself to the point of mobilizing sheriffs ("each and every singular sheriff in the State of Florida...").

Maybe a distinction without much of a difference, I agree.

If these judges continue to get away with murder, how much longer before the world Kurt Vonnegut predicted of The Handicapper General ruling who is worthy of living and who is not worthy of life comes true?

I am afraid that if we eliminate the fillibuster, that someday if the Dems ever regain control, with or without help from their friends the activist judges that we will rue the day, but we need to do something to get good God fearing conservative judges on the bench.

Couldn't Jogenfuhrer Greer be held in contempt of congress?

If the allegations of abuse of Terri Schiavo the incident that is rumored to have caused her condition) by Michael Schiavo are found to be true in the autopsy, as alleged by Patricia Anderson on Sean Hannity's radio show are true, he should then be charged with murdering Terri Schiavo, though I suppose down there in Hazzard COunty (Pinellas County) Florida, Greer and his friends who we all know are in lock step with Michael Schiavo they probably were bought and paid for by Michael Schiavo and friends, the charge would never make into court.

Pinellas County Florida sounds alot like the fictioonal Hazzard County in the TV show Dukes of Hazzard, doesn't it?

Boss Hogg = Michael Schiavo and George Felos
Roscoe P. Coaltrain = Judge Greer, Dr. Cranford, et al

anyone disagree?

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.