DeLay Cites 'Men in Black' for Court Reform

NewsMax ^ | 5/14/05 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is citing a controversial new book sharply critical of the Supreme Court's judicial activism as the basis for new Republican initiatives on court reform.

"As a guide to his views on the subject, DeLay has been urging reporters to read "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America," reports the Washington Post. Written by former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin, "Men in Black" details the history of the high court going back to Marbury vs Madison - exposing more than a few members of the exclusive legal club as racists, anti-Semites and sexual predators.

The high regard with which most Americans currently regard the court is undeserved, argues Levin, invoking disastrous decisions like Plessy vs. Ferguson, which codified Jim Crow segregation as the law of the land, and Korematsu vs. United States, which placed the Supreme Court's stamp of approval on President Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Rep. DeLay drew wide criticism from liberal pundits last month after he vowed that federal judges who sanctioned the starvation death of Terri Schiavo would be held accountable.

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who is spearheading the GOP push for judicial reform, told the Post that any new measures would not be aimed at retribution.

"There are some judges that have deliberately decided to be in the face of the president and the Congress, and when they are criticized for that, they hide behind the issue of judicial independence," Sensenbrenner told the Post.

None of the three branches of government "should be given a blank check without oversight on their operations," he explained.

Among the ideas under consideration by the Wisconsin Republican, the Post said, was creation of an office of inspector general for the federal judiciary, like those that now serve as watchdogs of executive-branch agencies, to take complaints, prepare reports, and audit and investigate the administration of the courts.

He also wants to break up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2002 that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because it included the words "under God."

"The Ninth is too big in so many ways," Sensenbrenner told a Stanford University audience this week. "The question is not if the Ninth will be split, but when."

[Teplukin]

This is a problem the Founding Fathers wrestled with. They chose not to give Congress the right to fire judges, as they had seen how English kings had abused this authority. Only impeachment (which is very difficult) is permitted as a means of removing judges.

Myself, I think all this hullaballo about the Terry S case was utter insanity. While her husband was undoubtedly a *, he still was legal guardian. As are you & I of our children. Since when have Conservatives been so anxious to strip legal guardians of their powers? This could lead to a situation where the gov't deprives us of custody of our children, if they think we are less than optimal parents.

All this big gov't conservativism is leading us away from the ideals of President Reagan

[planekT]

I think you need to read my post again. What happened in 1802 is fact. Congress sets the courts. Congress funds the courts. How can congress not liquidate their positions when they control the cash? No sir, impeachment is not the only method for removing a judge, or any number of them.

I have to differ with you on the Shiavo case. If what was going on here at FR and around the country seemed liked utter insanity, it was nothing compared to the way Judge Greer ruled throughout that whole ordeal.

Yes, Michael was technically her legal guardian. If that were enough to give him the last word, then why the lengthy trial? Why any trial at all? No, they needed Terri's permission. Or, by Florida law, testimony as to what her wishes were.

In fact, it came down to this. Judge Greer decided based on testimony of Michael Shiavo's brother and his brother's wife that Terri wouldn't want to live like that.

But Judge Greer ignored testimony of Terri's mother and one of Terri's old friends that she in fact did want to live. Judge Greer ignored Terri's friends testimony because he thought that Terri was still a minor when she said it and therefore she would not have been competent to make such a statement. But Judge Greer got that part wrong. In fact Terri was an adult when she made that statement. He later admitted his mistake, but he said it didn't matter. Huh?!!!!

Congress smelled something rotten in Florida, so they said "Hey you, Federal Court, Congress here (remember us, the folks that pay your salary?). We want you to take a good look at this.

Federal Court: "Piss off Congress. Who the hell do you think you are to tell us what to do? Judge Greer ignores your supoenas, he laughs at them. We laugh at your request for DeNovo review in this matter. F@#$ OFF!"

Anyhow, I rest my case. There is no doubt in my mind that the courts will have to be reined in. They are out of control and will remain so until they are. And, we need to appoint good Judges to the bench. The appointments will come about shortly it appears but only over the objection of the minority party.

There is also a lot of talk about rearranging the Ninth Circuit court. That'd be a start. Not sure what they have in mind, but it won't be the same when they get through with it.

[tame]

DeLay has been urging reporters to read "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America," reports the Washington Post.

Delay sure is giving these reporters a lot of credit: most reporters don't have the mental ability to follow the logical reasoning of Mr. Levin.

Still, the reporters should try to read and understand.

Mr. Levin, would you consider running for congress?