Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/14/05 9:15 am:
Excon,

>>>Judges don't work for congress and don't have to satisfy them at all. <<<

Nope. But they DO have to stick to their Constitutional powers. And Congress DOES determine the Jursidiction of the courts, including the Supreme Court. In fact, if it so desired, Congress has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to eliminate all of the courts except the Supreme Court, and limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to interpretation of treaties and interpreting Constitutional Law. Obviously that isn't a practical solution, but that is the law. So while the judges do not work for Congress and do not have to satisfy them with their rulings, the judges ARE bound to follow the Constituion as long as Congress forces them to do so. And Congress CAN force them to do so.

>>>If congress does anything to curtail the independance of the judiciary, it's because most of the right wingers in congress missed out on civics 101. <<<

Independence doesn't mean usurpation of powers outside their authority. And if they do usurp powers outside their authority, then Congress has the RESPONSIBILITY to stop them from doing so. THAT IS CIVICS 101. I know that you weren't at a prayer meating, so how did you miss that one?

>>>I couldn't agree more with you. Seperation of powers is the issue. What I don't understand, other than your blind allegience, is why you think that judges should do the bidding of congress, at the same time you yell: Seperation of Powers.<<<

I assume you are talking about the Schiavo case, which is what tipped this whole thing off.

Let's be very clear here: Congress never told the courts how to rule. They did tell the courts that the jurisdiction of the Schiavo case was in Federal court, and that as such, they were ordering a review of the case. They were NOT telling the courts how to decide the case, they were simply demanding another review of the evidence and merits. That is a jurisdictional issue over which the Congress has COMPLETE AUTHORITY as per the Constitution. And when Judge Greer ignored that order, he overtepped his bounds and authority. Congress determines jursidiction, not the Judiciary. When the Judiciary oversteps its bounds by ignoring a jurisdictional order from Congress, then it has broken the sepparation of powers and MUST be brought back in line.

Similarly, when a court doesn't rule based on established laws but rather based on their opinion in a deliberate attempt to create a new precedent (as the Supreme Court did in Medellin v. Dretke), or when it rules based on INTERNATIONAL law rather than the Constitution (as they also did in Medellin v. Dretke) then they are engaged writting laws rather than interpreting them. Only CONGRESS is allowed to write laws. By writting laws, the courts have broken the sepparation of powers, and MUST be brought back in line.

Do you know what happens if you don't bring the courts back in line? What happens is that the courts become the only body with the authority to write and interprete law, and can do so based on arbitrary opinion, with neither the congress nor the President able to stop them, because the courts can simply ignore them if they don't like it. The Judiciary becomes the ONLY body that has any power. Which means that all power is vested in the only body of the government that DOESN'T run for election and has lifetime appointments.

In most parts of the world, they call that dictatorship.

In order to keep that from happening, Congress HAS to yank the Judiciary up short.

Sure, all the cases where it is being called for are cases where the Right is being hurt by the Judicial misconduct. But that is because it is the LEFT that is perpetrating it. All you need is one good case where a RIGHT WING judge does the same thing, and the LEFT will be calling for Congress to take action as well. But right now, the judicial misconduct is helping the left. Why would they derail their gravy train, the only body of government where they still hold power? It's not in their best interest to do so.

Just one case of a Right-Wing judge deciding a sepparation of Church and State case in favor of allowing the 10-commandments into a public square, or against a right-to-die, based on his own opinion, and the left will be squeeling for the same thing Delay is demanding: that the judges be jerked back under control of the sepparation of powers.

This isn't a right-wing or left-wing issue. It's a constitutional preservation issue.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/14/05 10:43 am:
it would be fitting for Congress to cut the budget for the Federal Courts ;Effectively starving them to death

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/14/05 12:24 pm:
Sorry, I meant this as a clarification, not an answer.

Tom,

I actually prefer the idea of giving them "windows to the world".

In Japan, when an executive messes up, and they want to get rid of him, they don't fire him; they just take away his responsibilities. They let him keep his office, his company car, his perks, but they take away his ability to make any more screw-ups. And it eliminates any chances for further advancement. And finally, he serves as an example to others.

So in the end he has the title and the corner office, but he spends the rest of his career doing nothing but staring out the window. That is the meaning of "window to the world."

The same thing can be done to the judges here. Congress should limit their jurisdiction to a 10x12 space equal to the size of their offices. Eliminate their authority. Or give them jurisdiction of only traffic violations. Let them sit and judge traffic court all day. Let them keep their jobs and titles, but take away their ability to screw up, and to advance to any higher court, while at the same time letting them continue to serve as an example to others of what not to do. AND, it would have the added effect of showing once and for all that Congress really does control the jurisdictions of the court.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by drgade on 04/14/05 2:40 pm:
He is suffering a lot of heat from the liberal media....it is possible that it may turn him to toast.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/15/05 5:41 am:
in today's Washington Times :

If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters?
The liberal groups demand that Democrats filibuster (prevent the Senate from voting on) some of President Bush's best-qualified nominees to the federal appeals courts. But a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents.

Some Senators apparently believe voters won't see through partisan obstructionism. But they can't possibly believe the other myths about the filibuster.
Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.
Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.
Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.
Fact: In the last Congress, 10 of the president's 34 appellate nominees were filibustered — the lowest confirmation rate since FDR. Democrats mask their sabotage of these nominees by citing the confirmation rate of judges to federal courts overall — an irrelevant statistic, because the federal courts of appeal make final rulings on most issues of constitutional law. Liberals also argue that Abe Fortas was not confirmed as Chief Justice in 1968. But Mr. Fortas was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats), and President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Today, a Senate majority supports the nominees, and the president is not withdrawing them.
Myth No. 3: The Senate has a "co-equal" role with the president in judicial nominations.
Fact: The Constitution expressly gives the president — and only the president — the power to nominate federal judges. All the Senate can do is say "yes" or "no" to the president's choices. That is the "check" in the "checks-and-balances" system, to make sure no unqualified nominee becomes a federal judge. It does not give Senators — and a minority of Senators at that — the power to insist on judges who suit their own ideology.
Myth No. 4: The current filibuster is about "free speech."
Fact: Historically, the filibuster has given senators in the minority a chance to speak on the Senate floor before the majority rushes to pass a bill. But the current filibuster is not about the right to speak out. It is about blocking judges. These nominees have been pending for months — some for years. There has been, and remains, ample time to speak about them. The majority welcomes free speech and free debate — followed by a free vote.
Myth No. 5: The filibuster protects "the right of the minority" to veto nominees.
Fact: The Constitution requires two-thirds vote for certain things. Appointing judges is not one of them. So the basic principle of democracy applies: The majority decides. The filibuster of judicial nominees turns majority rule on its head, because 41of 100 senators can keep a judge off the bench without ever even voting.
A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda — allowing child pornography as free speech, mandating same-sex marriage, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, banning school prayer and preventing the death penalty for murderers and terrorists — because they can't win these issues at the ballot box. Mr. Bush promised to nominate judges who will apply the law as written and stay out of politics. The recent Ayres survey shows 67 percent of voters agree that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process." A full 61 percent of Democrats agree with this statement, as well as 73 percent of Independents and 69 percent of Republicans.
The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs — either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government — might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/15/05 7:30 am:
Great post, Tom. It hits all the high points of my own arguments.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 04/15/05 8:27 am:
>>>If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters?<<<

Sounds suspiciscous. How come it didn't say liberal interest groups OR RIGHT WINGERS? The writer thinks RIGHT WINGERS are just regular kinda voters. Well, they're not. They're as extreme as you get. The fact that they don't think so doesn't change reality.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/15/05 9:31 am:
>>Besides, Bush is a lame duck - he can't be brought down.<<

He can't? I wouldn't say that, but I'm sure the left realizes who would take his place if he was brought down. But, taking Bush "down" can mean lots of things, and it's obvious to anyone paying attention that the left has no intention of any getting into any useful dialogue, working together as a nation...or offering any solutions other than a "solution" of gaining power and furthering their agenda. For cryin' out loud, they're still talking about "stolen election" of 2000.

That's what annoys me about the left, ex. You're either with them or you're with them. Anyone that is not with them is a "right-wing nutcase." There's no middle ground, no compromise...no exceptions (I want to be paid big bucks if they adopt that as their slogan).

How about some quotes to back up my contentions?

From MoveOn's website today:

"Issues, issues, issues -- yes, very important -- but before we can do some real work on the content of our country, the outside cover will have to change. We can, and we should resist, resist, resist for the next three years"

"Voting Republican means putting the nut cases in charge."

"what we need to do: relentlessly expose the irrationality of the right-wing agenda."

"Arrest DeLay and Impeach Bush"

"We must maintain our pressure on DeLay. It's like breaking up concrete with a sledge hammer. You find a crack and start hitting with all your might. Over and over again. Ignore the pain and keep wacking. Once we enlarge the crack and break off the first chunk, (DeLay), the rest goes easier...Keep wacking at DeLay and de crooks in Texas. The crack is getting wider. Pretty soon the whole GOP will fit in the gap. When you bust concrete by hand, the smaller pieces turn into schrapnel. This schrapnel has the potential to wound and maim the credibility of the whole crooked BushCo regime. Keep wacking."

And that's just few bites out of one website. We also have:

www.votetoimpeach.org
www.impeachbush.tv
www.impeachbush.tv
impeachbush.meetup.com
www.impeachbush.org
impeachbushbumperstickers.com
www.impeach-bush-now.org

One of our local libs offered his latest diatribe today...no substance, just insulting descriptives of the right, such as:

"far-right accumulation of Christian zealots and political bottom-feeders"

"debased"

"smarmy"

"reptilian"

"Ethically challenged"

"most radical elements"

"apostates as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist"

Of course, "progressives" according to MoveOn contributors are "people of conscience" and "pure."

Those "pure people of conscience" intend to hammer away to "wound and maim the credibility of the whole crooked BushCo regime."

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 04/15/05 9:33 am:

Hello again, Its:

You're absolutely right. There is no dialogue - just yelling and name calling - on both sides.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/15/05 9:49 am:
hey ex,

I never said the right was innocent...just not as "reptilian" as the left says.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/15/05 10:42 am:
I think he's politically challenged when he thinks the courts should do the bidding of congress. It's actually dangerous kinda thinking.

Where is it written in the Constitution that the juduciary is final arbiter ? Elliot is correct in pointing out the exact clauses that refer to the Congresses role visa-vie the judiciary ;in fact it is explicit and unless an amendment changed anything the truth is that the Federal Courts except the Supreme Court are answerable to Congress [the Constitution also gives Congress the power to define the boundaries of the Supreme Court "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Supreme Court upheld this limitation of its own authority in Ex parte McCardle (1868)].Just because the juduciary has assumed a greater role until now unchallenged does not mean that it is so.


Your homework is to read the following quotes from Thomas Jefferson's reaction to Marbury v Madison (the case that started it all)

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.
Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815

But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union,, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.

Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.


The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214