Posted on 04/20/2005 4:02:56 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The Terri Schiavo case so outraged House Republican leader Tom DeLay that he has all but declared war on the judiciary. Heaven knows judicial arrogance needs discussion, but a politician under siege for alleged ethics violations who is upset over a single outcome that two-thirds of the country agrees with is not the person to get discussion going.
After federal courts refused to act in the Schiavo case despite the new jurisdiction that Delay helped create, DeLay said the courts had ``run amok'' in abortion and school prayer cases. Congress, he said, ``must make sure the judges administer their responsibilities.''
Some conservative activists started muttering about impeaching Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (he's the author of a few recent decisions they don't like).
Other GOP leaders were aghast, fearing that the hullabaloo would threaten their effort to win Senate votes on judicial nominees threatened with filibuster. And sky-is-falling editorial writers wondered if the judiciary would survive.
The uncomfortable fact is that DeLay is on to something. Judges at all levels all over the country long have been throwing precedent and logic to the winds to reach results they want. In Massachusetts we recall federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity's failed experiment in running the Boston schools and our Supreme Judicial Court's more recent discovery of a ``right'' of gays to marry. We are not alone.
Activist judges seem to have forgotten that their decisions must be judged reasonable both by people who don't like the result and people who do. Case in point: Kennedy's opinion outlawing the death penalty for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. Using the trend of laws in other countries to justify it strikes us as unreasonable indeed.
There are a number of tools that can be used legitimately against out-of-bounds judges. (Cutting court budgets is not one.) The Constitution grants Congress power over the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The framers thought impeachment was the remedy for judges guilty of ``a series of deliberate usurpations'' - a series, not a single case (``The Federalist,'' No. 81). Ending nomination filibusters can be thought of as another. As 11 states reminded us last November, constitutions can be amended. New laws can be enacted.
If any of this is undertaken, it should be done soberly. In an ideal world, it would be led by public figures of stature who are not involved in partisan politics.
The Schiavo case has precious little to do with the problem. In her case, all the judges applied the law as they found it. If it takes up DeLay's request to examine the actions of the federal courts in this case, the House Judiciary Committee should concentrate on whether changes are needed in the law, not the judges.
B.S. up the wazoo alert. Go, DeLay!!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Ruth Bader should be impeached first and foremost.
Congress doesn't have what it takes to impose a check on a runaway judicary while the courts have no problem at all slapping Congress around like a punching bag.
Delay at least, recognizes that and is willing to speak out on it. The rest of them are, well, wussies.
If any of this is undertaken, it should be done soberly. In an ideal world, it would be led by public figures of stature who are not involved in partisan politics.
That would be Tom Delay.
We have to start with the seed: the lawyers and local corruption.
There is an "institutionalized legal system' in every state-effectively a union of lawyers ("Officers of the Court") and judges..in which, more times than not, the "law" has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a local civil case---but where the cases are decided by horse trading in Chambers.
Lawyers routinely sell out their clients best interest, succumbing to peer pressure and judicial pressure; i.e. a lawyer does not want to garner the reputation of being a maverick who steadfastly fights for right, justice and law, because, if so, s/he loses his/her standing in the union.
The end result, is that lawyer is going to have a tough time earning a living, where the judges and other attorneys are going to make it extremely unlikely that the maverick attorney ever wins a case. It's predominantly politics.
At this point, I think I speak the obvious....but for those who haven't been aware of this institutionalized legal system, they are becoming more aware now...resulting in the frustration of some victims of injustice that leads them to wrongfully engage violence.
The most telling aspect of this principle is where the Judiciary, even the Conservative 11th Circuit, united in lockstep when one of their brethren was challenged by Congress (Greer)- even where it was evident that Greer made clearly erroneous decisions AND even where the Legislature and Executive Branches ordered, by constitutional means via a Law, that the District Court perform a de novo review.
I saw in a piece of proposed legislation, that one element, was the establishment of an ombudsman, to whom those victimized by judicial tyranny could bring their grievances. This solution is a step in the right direction
However, the Office of the ombudsman would have to be "real".
In Ct, we have a grievance procedure for those misrepresented by their attorneys. Of course, it's a straw man. The ultimate arbiter of the grievance is a panel of lawyers designated by the Bar Association. So much for that.
In Ct, a maverick lawyer, a woman, sued 3 judges for corruption and collusion. Very brave, indeed. Not only did she lose the case, she was disbarred for 5 years- a disbarment upheld by the Ct. Supreme Court.
In Ct., we have a statute against Unfair Trade Practices conducted by businesses, professionals and commercial enterprises. You guessed it- the Ct Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply to attorneys.
This ombudsman, or a citizen's review committee, would be an effective solution to the tyranny of local judges and attorneys who see themselves as the "law"- the trick will be to get in past a Legislature consisting, in good measure, of attorneys.
I'm on Chapter 2 of "Men in Black" - and it was CLEARLY the intention of the framers that the HIGH COURT NOT BE THE SOLE AUTHORITY OVER THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE.
I mean these judges are so far off the track. And "good behavior" should be regarded as NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONSITUTION - which could eliminate most of the current judges we have - at least all those who have written laws from the bench.
People think "good behavior" should mean criminal activity - it doesn't - because they are already included under HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
Its purpose is to create enough public distraction so that the targets of their criticism, along with the supporters of those targets, have to spend so much time and effort focusing on responding to the personal criticisms with the result that they don't have adequate time to push forward their agenda.
An ancillary issue is: how much am I paying in taxes for the increased number of congressional staffers needed to do the research and prepare the responses to personal attacks, rather than information about the legislative agenda?
And when the public does begin to pay attention, their interest is in the scandal or potential scandal rather than what they should be paying attention to.
The press is complicit in that most all of their questions relate to the criticisms of the individuals, not the legislative agenda.
This is getting pathetic.
I see someone crying out for reform and I see people trying to silence him.
I see someone crying out for reform and I see people trying to silence him.
Ping if you can't stand judicial despots.
FV SAYS: I disagree with the last paragraphs of this article. Judge Greer, Judge Baird and Judge Whittemore, the 2nd dca and the Fla Supremes all said NO to Terri. They didn't follow the law. They just followed along.
When judicial activism ENDS UP KILLING HUMAN BEINGS, it should be investigated.
bump
I don't have this ADA law but I know they passed it. That's just one Federal Law that Greer broke as well as Whittemore by not allowing Terri to have a de novo hearing. Whittemore said "tube's not going back in."
The US must investigate Judge Greer, Judge Baird, Judge Whittemore and while we're at it, Judge Mark Shames who early on, did something awful in Terri's guardianship. (He retired and he's just a boomer. Guess he thinks he could duek out of this? LOL)
If the US investigates, Florida will have to clean house. There are nasty people in every agency that was supposed to protect Terri. If Jebbie begs the US to not investigate, someone will find out and he'll look even worse. The Fla GOP will really be finished in any event. Donation envelopes will say "impeach Greer" instead of enclosing donations.
17
CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE: 1-866-808-0065 (last wk).
You are encouraged to call your Senator today. Please ask them to back the "Constitutional Option." The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
The Constitutional Option is a simple procedure designed to stop the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow them to finally get up-or-down votes by the full Senate.
Stand with us as we Confront the Judicial War on Faith.
http://www.StopActivistJudges.org
FV SAYS: This advocacy group has many coalitions within it. They are really fit to be tied re: what the judicial system did to Terri. In addition, they are FED UP WITH THE NOMINEE FILIBUSTERING BY THE DEMS.
PLEASE PING YOUR LISTS. This group has lots of Texans in it.
CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE: 1-866-808-0065 (last wk).
You are encouraged to call your Senator today. Please ask them to back the "Constitutional Option." The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
The Constitutional Option is a simple procedure designed to stop the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow them to finally get up-or-down votes by the full Senate.
Stand with us as we Confront the Judicial War on Faith.
http://www.StopActivistJudges.org
FV SAYS: This advocacy group has many coalitions within it. They are really fit to be tied re: what the judicial system did to Terri. In addition, they are FED UP WITH THE NOMINEE FILIBUSTERING BY THE DEMS. YOu can sign up for their newsletter. They are new and need joiners.
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.