Posted on 04/13/2005 5:51:47 AM PDT by WaterDragon
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"That's not very helpful. Which ones, and for what specific acts of "bench legislation?"
We must begin to develop the list of judges who must be impeached and removed...I don't have a list handy, but we must simply agree that IMPEACHING judges who rule un-Constitutionally must be removed!!
"And lest you forget, the current Supreme Court may be fairly identified as the most conservative court in the last 75 years."
SHEEESH, you've gotta be kidding me...the SCOTUS signed off on CFR, fer chrissakes, blatantly ignoring the first amendment of the Constitution. The present SCOTUS has also failed to overturn the horrifically un-Constitutional Roe v. Wade!! We must rid the court of these oligarchical egomaniacs, then salt the earth from which they sprang so that no more Lib'ral dimwits soil our judical system ever again!!
"Kind of rash to ditch a panel of judges that has consistently ruled favorably on conservative issues for one (rather oddly) perceived decisional indiscretion."
Fer a FReeper with "law" in their screen name, you sue have a skewed way of thinking when it comes to Leftist zealots who have instituted Legislative measures that Congress would never pass. The judicial branch is hopelessly outta touch and needs the strong medicine that Impeachment would bring!!
FReegards...MUD
Well, we agree on that, but you seem to fail to grasp the reality that there are checks and balances in our system of governance, and Impeachment and Removal of judges is 100% constitutional and long overdue!!
FReegards...MUD
It's an odd but quite prevalent condition on internet discussion boards these days. Indeed, it would make an interesting topic for psychological research.
Well, I confess. You lost me on this one. What is CFR (other than the Code of Federal Regulations)? Old oil & gas lawyers sometimes miss the latest Supreme Court scandal.
You don't know the area of law I practice and you don't know the law firm I am with. Yet you feel free to recreationally impugn my character. . . . It's an odd but quite prevalent condition on internet discussion boards these days.
Really? Gee, I wonder why I've never encountered it. </sarcasm>
What is CFR . . . ?
Campaign finance reform, specifically the McCain-Feingold Act. Congress passed it and the President signed it into law, but it's the SCOTUS's fault for not striking it down. 'Judicial activism', y'see.
McStain/Feingold's Campaign Finance Reform.
"Old oil & gas lawyers sometimes miss the latest Supreme Court scandal."
Well, I ain't much fer lawyers, but at least yer one of the ones doing something productive...I really can't stand Tort lawyers. Are you in favor of Tort Reform?
FReegards...MUD
Thanks. And here I was thinking that the lack of judicial deference to legislative acts was the problem. I have alot to learn.
Interesting that you feel your character impugned, recreationally or otherwise.
You're being absolutely ridiculous here. Like atlaw, I see no other way to read your remarks than as an insult. Indeed, it would have taken a mind-reader to read them any other way.
Heh. No, that's only the problem when the Supreme Court strikes down a law that you like. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to slap Congress down is ALSO a major problem, but only when Congress passes a law that you don't like.
I hope this clears things up.
"Really? Gee, I wonder why I've never encountered it. "
I know it's tough to remain civil when talking to attorneys...but they do come in handy in a pinch...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
For the most part, yes. I think that the Texas limitations on punitive damages have been quite successful (I have a congenital aversion to the notion of punitive damages), but the Texas medical malpractice reforms have yet to solve the problem they were intended to remedy -- high malpractice insurance rates. The reforms were well intended (and in fact may work eventually), but the insurance industry is notoriously difficult to reign in.
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Thanks. And here I was thinking that the lack of judicial deference to legislative acts was the problem. I have a lot to learn.Heh. No, that's only the problem when the Supreme Court strikes down a law that you like. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to slap Congress down is ALSO a major problem, but only when Congress passes a law that you don't like.
Exactly. The real problem is 'Supreme Court opinions we don't agree with'.
But you're not supposed to say that. What you're supposed to say is that all such opinions are by definition 'unconstitutional' and therefore evidence of 'judicial tyranny' by 'black-robed terrorists' who are turning America into a 'judicial oligarchy' through their 'judicial activism'.
And you're supposed to make sure you work in that last phrase ('judicial activism') even when the decision at issue is one that showed undue deference to the legislature or the executive -- like Korematsu, which made Mark Levin's shortlist of 'activst' decisions despite the fact that it involved the SCOTUS upholding a probably-unconstitutional executive order from FDR.
All clear now?
Seems like they'd be one of the primary beneficiaries of successful Tort Reform...are you saying the insurance companies are simply failing to pass their savings onto the consumer?
FReegards...MUD
BTW...I really like the Congressional move to limit all Class-Action cases to Federal courts. It's a good start. I also believe instituting a LOSER PAYS clause in Tort cases would go a long way towards ending some of the more ridiculous abuses of our Tort system.
I apologize to you and atlaw and any other attorney on this thread that I have offended in any way.Apology accepted.
Same here, although I don't think you really owed me one personally.
I know it's tough to remain civil when talking to attorneys...but they do come in handy in a pinch...LOL!!
Yup. For example, some members of our profession turned out to be pretty good at drafting Constitutions ;-).
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.