Next We Should Starve the Courts

Human Events ^ | Apr 12, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Tailgunner Joe]

The courts so purposely humiliated Congress in the Terri Schiavo case that some U.S. representatives are finally beginning to talk back. Non-elected judges have flagrantly abused the legislative and executive functions of government for so many years that we wonder why a reaction has taken this long.

With the whole world watching, a mere probate judge in Florida thumbed his nose at a congressional subpoena and refused to comply. Then the federal judiciary closed ranks behind him, asserting its independence from and supremacy over not only an act of Congress, but even over the life of an innocent and defenseless woman.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Birch stuck in the knife, asserting that Congress unconstitutionally "invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." We marvel at the chutzpah of a federal judge charging Congress with violating the separation of powers after we've endured years of judges legislating from the bench, rewriting our Constitution, distorting our history, assaulting our morals, saving vicious criminals from their just punishment, raising taxes and inflicting us with foreign laws.

When a man's honor is impugned, he can pretend he didn't hear the insult or he can come out fighting. Congress can't pretend it didn't hear Judge Birch's insult, so Congress must take action to curb the imperial action of supremacist judges.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R.-N.C.) responded that we saw "a state judge completely ignore a congressional committee's subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed." House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) who has likewise had enough, said, "Terri's will to live should serve as an inspiration and impetus for action."

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas) spoke for Americans who believe in the Constitution when he said, "The Congress of the United States for many, many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer."

Even some Democrats in Congress are dismayed by the arrogance of the judges. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.) observed that "once they get on the bench, they seem to think the importance of having a relationship with the House and Senate no longer exists."

But Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) like most liberals who can't achieve their radical goals legislatively, supports judicial supremacy over Congress, the president, the Florida governor and legislature. Kennedy even tried to silence complaints by absurdly suggesting that public criticism incites violence against judges.

The Constitution expressly limits the power of federal judges to what our elected representatives give them. After all, what is the point of having representative government if non-elected and unaccountable judges decide everything of significance?

Congress and the president should not pass the buck to judges in black robes and hide behind their skirts when they make outrageous decisions. Here are some ways Congress can start to restore representative government.

• Congress should withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and the Defense of Marriage Act. Two bills to do this (the Akin Bill and the Hostettler Bill) easily passed the House last fall but were ignored by the Senate, and now it is time to make them law.

• Congress should withdraw jurisdiction over court challenges to the Boy Scouts of America, a federally chartered organization, which the American Civil Liberties Union is currently trying to ban from public schools. The ACLU is seeking activist judges who will rule it a violation of the First Amendment for the Boy Scouts to pledge allegiance to God and country and commit to keeping themselves "morally straight."

• Congress should repeal the 1976 law that permits activist judges to grant lavish attorney's fees to the ACLU when it succeeds in banning the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments or a cross that has existed on public property for decades.

• Both Houses of Congress should hold hearings about remedies for supremacist decisions. Congress should bring defiant judges before the American people to answer questions about their worst rulings.

Any judge who allows an adulterer with a live-in girlfriend to terminate the life of his wife should be impeached. Victims of such judges should have the right to demand a different judge (as is currently granted by Illinois courts).

Now that judges embrace forcibly starving someone to death, Congress should use its appropriation power to starve the judicial budget. Let's cut out judges' perks such as travel to international conferences where they pick up bad ideas about conforming our laws to foreign opinions and United Nations treaties.

On April 1, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized congressional resolutions to curb the out-of-control judges, saying, "It is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support." She endorsed the practice of consulting foreign and international law.

But Chief Justice William Rehnquist included this statement in his annual report without any criticism or comment: "There were several bills introduced in the last Congress that would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide constitutional challenges to certain kinds of government action."

Maybe Rehnquist was reminding Congress of its constitutional powers to constrain the judiciary.

[Theodore R.]

Ergo Congress has authority to call Greer before them.

Authority, yes, but backbone, no! Dr. Frist needs to get out of the heart surgery business and try backbone transplants instead, if there is such a thing.

[QQQQQ]

Here is the excellent, to the point dissenting opinion of Judge Wilson, of the 11th Cricuti court:



WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I strongly dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the request for an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act and the request for a preliminary injunction.

First, Plaintiffs have demonstrated their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Second, the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction frustrates Congress’s intent, which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs.

The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment.

Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
We should, at minimum, grant Plaintiffs’ All Writs Petition for emergency injunctive relief.

First, I note that there is no precedent that prohibits our granting of this petition. Second, mindful of equitable principles, the extraordinary circumstances presented by this appeal require that we grant the petition to preserve federal jurisdiction and permit the opportunity to give Plaintiffs’ claims the full and meaningful review they deserve.

In considering this extraordinary case, I am mindful that “[t]he essence of In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we 1 adopted as
binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 12 equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity
has distinguished it.

The qualities of mercy and practicality have made equity the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971) (citations omitted). Keeping those principles firmly in mind, “mercy and practicality” compel us to grant the relief requested.


From the 11th CC ruling (Wilson't dissenting opinion starts on page 11)

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf

[QQQQQ]

"The Congress can subpoena anyone to a hearing and an investigation. They can grill Greer over a number of issues related to judicial malfeasamce. "

===

No, they can't. Greer apparently has the power to squash any subpoena issued by the US Congress. Afterall, Congress issued a subpoena for Terri, which Greer squashed without any consequences to him.

So, I guess the US Congress is only allowed to subpoena people, that Judge Greer won't veto.

Judge Greer -- the most powerful person in the US.

I hope the US Congress wakes up to this.

[QQQQQ]

Greer defied the will of the US Congress, when he squashed their subpoena for Terri, and he also violated US Federal laws by not allowing Terri due process under the US Constitution.

He should be tried and convicted.

[Sicon]

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas) spoke for Americans who believe in the Constitution when he said, "The Congress of the United States for many, many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer."

I haven't heard it discussed, and may have simply missed it, but it would seem to me that this is why the dems are going after DeLay now. I think they see him as a threat to their stranglehold on the courts, and their ability to legislate from the bench. If they can get him out of the way, or at least force him to put his efforts into defending himself, rather than reigning in the out-of-control judiciary, they may think they can retain control of the judges and courts.

[pc93]

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2005/04/floridah_gov_an.html#comments

While I disagree about some of the comments re: culpability in the comments of this person I wasn't aware of this url he mentions at the end of the comments.

[supercat]

I think Congress should build a 50-foot section of federal highway to nowhere in Alaska, and give it its own traffic court. Staffed by very highly paid judges taken from elsewhere in the federal court system.

[Sun]

Here's a "two for."

Please call your Republican Congresspersons AND two U.S. senators and tell them to support Tom DeLay.

Get you Congressman's office number here: http://www.house.gov/ and tell them to support Tom DeLay.

Here's the "two-for" part:

While you are talking with your senator's office, to tell them to support Tom DeLay, please also tell them you want them to vote to end a filibuster by a simple majority as the Constitution requires.

If you don't know your U.S. senators phone number, you can find it here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Whether your U.S. senators are Republican or Democrat, please call them to vote to end the filibusters.

[The_Reader_David]

Add to the list: a statute defining the due process protections for life, liberty and property as including the right not to be deprived of any of them without a jury trial. (Which was, after all what the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment meant by due process.)

[Proud Conservative2]

"It grieves me to criticize the President. We are blessed that his opponent lost the election, and millions around the world are in his debt. But in some matters he is not conservative enough, and in these times that's as bad as being not conservative at all. "


Well said!

[nutmeg]

read later

[GloriaJane]

Great article! I like the writers ideas.