Posted on 05/10/2005 2:10:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON -- House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner urged Congress on Monday to create a government watchdog for the federal judiciary, but he also said lawmakers should ignore conservative calls to weaken courts because of federal judges' decisions during the Terri Schiavo case.
"While I vociferously disagree with the federal judiciary's handling of this case, that does not mean that Congress should respond by attempting to neuter the courts," Sensenbrenner said in prepared remarks for a speech at Stanford University.
Several conservatives outside and inside Congress have urged lawmakers to look into possibly cutting money from courts that have made decisions they disagree with, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said last month.
The federal courts refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube, and the brain-damaged Florida woman died March 31. That set off a firestorm of conservative criticism against the federal benches.
But "it is one thing for Congress to monitor how the courts are set up; it is quite another thing to tell them how they must author opinions," Sensenbrenner's speech said.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are locked in a battle over filibustering some of President Bush's judicial nominations, with Democrats insisting they have a right to block nominees and Republicans contending they have a right to change Senate rules to ban filibusters.
The Republican-controlled House has no say over who is appointed to the federal bench. But House members do have the authority to look at the courts' operation, since the House and Senate provide the money for federal judges through the budget, Sensenbrenner said.
The House Judiciary Committee is looking into setting up an inspector general's office to work with the federal appeals and trial judges to see how they are handling the money Congress gives them, he said.
"Congress has the power of the purse to fund the Supreme Court and lower federal courts," Sensenbrenner said. "If the courts are not spending their resources judiciously, the American people through their representatives are entitled to corrective action."
He said setting up a watchdog over the federal courts won't affect their independence.
LOL. They can make that declaration over and over while they flip burgers for a living.
The power to declare laws "unconstitutional" was asserted by the Judiciary, never extended in the Constitution. Such a power itself is actually "unconstitutional", even if it sounds reasonable for the judiciary to exercise.
The only answer at this point in history is to admit that the Constitution is flawed: even though the judiciary was never given this power, they have exercised it, and there is no mechanism whereby it can be revoked.
Such a mechanism in law should be brought into existence. By an amendment of the Constitution, which a) limits the capacity of the courts to overturn or redefine laws, and b) provides a legislative review in cases where such is actually done, with the ability of the Congress to reassert its original meaning if they decide that that is what was misconstrued by the courts.
Flame me if you want. Talk about term limiting federal judges (a good idea). But something radical has to occur. Most of the ugliness of our lives now stem from some court decision in this century.
I agree, the authority to declare something unconstitutional simply doesn't exist in the Constitution. The problem is that there is a 200 year precedent of the judiciary doing this, that means the only way to "clarify" the situation is to amend the Constitution.
...A watchdog will do no good...
I think we've watched this dog of a judiciary long enough.
We don't have to amend the constitution. Just start firing their sorry asses. They'll get the message pretty quick.
It means we should neuter the judge. If it doesn't mean that than we are ready for a dictator and there is certainly no reason to get involved in the democratic process because there is a voice above mine who is not accountable to me and whose decisions I must always tolerate.
This is a great article by Newt Gingrich. If any of you haven't seen it, please scroll down a bit and read the relevant portion about judges.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378491/posts
One move might be to put age limits on Judges (including Justices) and give them pensions instead of full salaries for life. That might get through the House but not likely through the Senate. In any case, it would just be a shot across the bow.
In the end, it will take some kind of Constitutional amendment restoring equality amoung the three branches.
One slight problem -- the legislative branch needs and overseer, too.
Once they start setting up overseers over each other, we'll have a government full of watchdogs watching other watchdogs watch the government.
That would be a start. It certainly didn't used to be that big of a deal. Was done rather routinely a century or so ago.
Maybe that's the easy way: define the "good behavior" clause as to continued judicial incumbency to include not overthrowing laws or using ad hoc arguments to create laws out of thin air. That could be done by Congressional action. If were written well, you could have a lot of guys getting the boot quickly.
But that would require the will to do it on the part of Congress. Since Judge Greer is currently dancing on the woman's grave, and accepting lifetime accolades for his performance, I don't really see much in the way of will power.
A common tactic in business...it sure as hell makes sense when you start seeing obvious mushy brain syndrome like Sandy Baby O'Connor....
Good. That'll keep them occupied running around after each other.
The rest of us can watch the spectacle. Maybe sell tickets.
I agree, the only thing stopping it is the will, and that was the same problem in Florida. That POS Greer was/is their problem and they just rolled over for him like he was the State Dictator. I would have had him in handcuffs when I pulled up to that so called Hospice and ordered that Pinellas Posse to stand down or else.
Makes me sick. I still haven't gotten over it and I don't think I ever will, or that I should.
Anyway, I do think it is the best solution. I don't think Congress should even waste their time on lengthy impeachment hearings when they can just liquidate their position, and they don't need an excuse to do it either. They could start at the Ninth Circus as Newt suggests with the two who want "Under God" thrown out of the pledge and go on from there.
Unfortunately, I have thought about this ever since I realized what was going to happen. For a couple of weeks, I could think of nothing else. I hope I am just an eternal pessimist, but I don't think anything is going to change; it's already too late and we are too far gone. This was just the eye-opener that some of us were no longer able to ignore. While we slept, the war was fought and our side lost before we awoke to what was happening. There are not enough of us with the will to force change. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that few of us are young so now all they have to do is wait for us to die and there will be not only no opposition to their new country, but no one to even remember what the country once was.
Sensenbrenner is starting to sound senseless. First his ID card bill and now this.
I have a favor to ask of you. Define ad hoc for me.
ADVERB:
For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other: a committee formed ad hoc to address the issue of salaries.
ADJECTIVE:
Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose: an ad hoc compensation committee.
Improvised and often impromptu: "On an ad hoc basis, Congress has . . . placed . . . ceilings on military aid to specific countries" (New York Times).
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.