OPEN LETTER TO HUGH HEWITT RE: TERRI SCHIAVO and the JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY

2005-03-23 | UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

YOU ARE WRONG!

I don't care if you do teach Con Law. Irwin [Chemerinsky] teaches Con Law. Nuff said.

The threat of Executive Nullification of Judicial Edicts is an Essential part of the separation and balance of powers. If Executive enforcement is a mere arm of Judiciary legal fiat, you have the Executive, Legislative and Judicial power invested in one Judicial Oligarchy. That is anathema to anything American.

The Court was envisioned to have the power of persuasion only. But if their pronouncements bind the Congress and President automatically, the need for persuasion is gone. PLEASE read Federalist #78. It that says the judiciary is "dependent on the executive even for the efficacy of its judgements". But if the President has no choice in the matter, then the Judiciary is in place of and superior to the President and not dependent on anything. Its power as keeper of the Constitution means that Congress too is irrelevant unless it can mount a 2/3 vote, which is historically rare.

We cannot live for decades on end without a President or Congress. Hundreds of bad Court decisions tearing out America's social fabric prove that. The naked abuse of Congress as well as Terri Shiavo make it glaringly visible.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Hugh Hewitt responded to several calls yesterday by saying that the President has no power to act on behalf of Terri Schiavo contrary to court orders. He characterized the Schiavo case as an injustice like Dred Scot and Plessy that we just have to live with.

Federalist #78 by Alexander Hamilton: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm

[StonyBurk]

THANK YOU-AND I AGREE. Just sent the President e-mail reminding him that we have constitutionally three branches of government. To act as necessary checks and balances. Wasn't it Hamilton who said the Judiciary was the weakest branch by design ,for it has no power to enforce it's will.
I wrote Governor Bush yesterday asking him if he could seize Terri that she might live. If she dehydrates while the Courts and the politicians are posturing like schoolyard combatants it all becomes moot for her. I truely fear for Michaels latest shackup if he grows weary of her
life as he clearly has Terri's Encouraged by the Courts in
this murder by Court mandate will he not try it again?

[demlosers]

Hamilton who said the Judiciary was the weakest branch by design ,for it has no power to enforce it's will.

yes, Hamilton and a few others. Why because they are the unelected.

[FR_addict]

I agree. Both Bush boys are sitting on their hands and allowing the cruel and inhumane murder of this innocent woman. If the executive branch will not save this woman, whose life is being taken by a state government, our Constitution means nothing.

We are guaranteed the right to life with due process. The courts want to pretend that an abusive man, who has morally given up all rights to be considered Terri's husband, is openly cohabiting and fathering children with another woman and has no compassion for Terri's family, has the legal right to speak for the disabled woman he abandoned.

If the courts blatantly ignore caretakers and witnesses who have sworn affidavits as to Terri's true condition and have also witnessed this man say "when is that bitch going to die" and ignore all the rest of the very pertinent medical facts in this case, then our Constitution means nothing.

Since when did a woman become the property of a man in this country. The same judge who has condemned Terri to die, chooses to ignore that Michael Schiavo is in violation of numerous guardian statutes in Florida. The judge is selectively picking the laws he wants to enforce and the Governor and President sit back and ignore this travesty of justice. They are the executive branch and have a duty and obligation to enforce the laws that a being violated.

I feel as if I'm witnessing the death of our way of life along with Terri's death.

[FR_addict]

Hugh Hewitt
Website: http://www.hughhewitt.com
On air phone: 1-800-520-1234
Hugh Hewitt's email: hhewitt@hughhewitt.com
Duane, producer: generalissimo@hughhewitt.com
Lynne, VP Operations: lchapman@hughhewitt.com
Show syndicator, Salem Radio Network:http://www.srnonline.com

[FR_addict]

I just sent Jeb Bush an email too.

I plan to call both brothers this morning.
http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/contacts/contactGov.htmlv

E-mail:
Governor Jeb Bush
jeb.bush@myflorida.com

Write:
PL 05 The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Telephone:
850/488-4441
Fax: 850/487-0801


White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Mailing Address

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

TTY/TDD

Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121
E-Mail
President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

[McGavin999]

No, we don't have to just live with it. Congress holds the pursestrings. A serious cut in the budget would get their attention real quick. If that were followed by a splitting up of the 9th circut court it would be like a bucket of cold water on the judiciary. They need to be put back in their place. We are becoming like Iran with a bunch of robed old fogies making decisions without being elected.

[Redleg Duke]

Yeah, we may have to "live with it", but Terri has to "Die with it!"

[JudgemAll]

there is no 'living with it" in a culture of destruction of all evidences to probable cause crime scenes, including the living and likes of Terri.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Activist judges are the mullahs of the secular religion.

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

Bump. I heard what I believe was the very first caller who brought the Schiavo case to Hewitt's attention. He blew her off saying the judge must be assumed to have had good reasons, being a judge and all that.

[farmer18th]

The threat of Executive Nullification of Judicial Edicts is an Essential part of the separation and balance of powers.

Hugh Hewitt just denied this again on his show, and claimed Jefferson has nothing valid to say about the constitution. (Of course, Jefferson wasn't one of the framers, but I thought it interesting that Hugh regards himself closer to the intent than our third president and the writer of the Declaration.)

This guy is a perfect example of the fatal fracture within conservatism--good boys who follow the rules, even if it takes them right into the cattle cars.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Yeah, HH just keeps saying 'you're wrong, you're wrong, 200 years of precedent, blah, blah'. No specifics. Those '200 years of precedent' since then are the problem. We give specifics and he blows it off. Lincoln ignored the courts on habeas for the duration, Jackson ignored the court in 1815 when he threw a judge in jail under martial law, and again as President. Marbury v. Madison came out the way it did because Marshall knew he couldn't order Jefferson to deliver the commissions. They are all on the money. Federalist papers arguments - not dispositive. On and on.

Jeb could have been impeached in Florida and come to the 2008 Republican Convention carried in on the shoulders of conservatives. After three years of the facts coming out, today's polls would mean jack.

We have a majority of Republicans on SCOTUS, SCOFLA, the 11th Circuit (7-5), Judge Greer himself. What does that get you? You put a Republican on the bench and half the time he's one of "them". That's what you get when you put "center-right" with "hard left".

[bloggodocio]

"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet": Bloggodocio.

At the risk of becoming a victim of Freepricide...I dissent.

I saw a lot of cable news coverage this weekend and heard a LOT of talk radio coverage of this story this past two weeks. One of the most short-sighted aspects I've observed is the call for the 'damn-the-torpedos' approach...defy the judges and just go in and seize Terri. Our local (Sacramento) nighttalk host is even on record on the Sac Union Blog as using force and, well, just read it yourself and decide what he means:

Mr. Bush needs to sign a piece of paper telling Judge Greer to “go to hell” and send in whatever force is necessary to brush aside the small town cops standing between Terri Schiavo and life. Mr. Bush needs to fire the first figurative (God, let’s hope not actual) shot that will take this brewing constitutional cold war hot. Mr. Bush has the moral ground, and the obligation to history. Does he have the courage to act, or is he destined to become an illustration for good men standing idle as evil triumphs is the question.

Whether it's our Night Talker calling for "use of force", or the protestors in Florida or others on the radio demanding civil disobediance, all the parties who refuse to accept the judical outcome risk doing serious damage to the pro-life cause. Worse still, they risk doing damage to the Constitutional system.

What would happen if every Governor just started ignoring the judicial results that they disagreed with? Look at the national chaos caused by San Francisco's mayor when he in all his wisdom decided California voters were wrong when they said marriage was to be between one man and one woman. What if the mayor of crime-ridden Detroit just one day decided that Michigan's gun laws were overly strict and certain aspects were unconstitutional, and started having the Detroit Police Department issue permits for citizens to carry firearms, unconcealed?

The problem with judges needs to be solved with judges. You fight lawyers with lawyers, not with mobs, or extraconstitutional measures. Many who now rail against activist liberal judges forget that a century ago it was the conservative judges who were activist. The problem is the activism, not the liberalism. Those calling for figurative heads to roll need to take the long view. For the end result of your desires to stick, it must be arrived at within the sytem, not from without.

I side with Hugh.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I'll answer all of your points:

1) Use of force.

Use of force is unnecessary. The governor of Florida has the power to suspend the county sheriff (as a county officer not subject to impeachment), appoint his own man and then order the police at the hospice to stand down.

Here are the relevant constitutional provisions:

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE VIII - County Government
Section 1
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court;

ARTICLE IV - Executive
SECTION 7. Suspensions; filling office during suspensions.--
(a) By executive order stating the grounds and filed with the custodian of state records, the governor may suspend from office any state officer not subject to impeachment, any officer of the militia not in the active service of the United States, or any county officer, for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension. The suspended officer may at any time before removal be reinstated by the governor.

ARTICLE III - Legislative
SECTION 17. Impeachment.--
(a) The governor, lieutenant governor, members of the cabinet, justices of the supreme court, judges of district courts of appeal, judges of circuit courts, and judges of county courts shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor in office.

2) Damage to the Constitutional system.

When judges make judgements that disregard laws, ignore or overreach the constitution, and then command unquestioned obedience of the executive for enforcement, that is judicial tyranny, judges exercising the functions of all three branches of government and a mockery of a constitutional system.

3) "What would happen if every Governor just started ignoring the judicial results that they disagreed with?"

During the first 50 years of the Constitution this happened a number of times. Jefferson and Jackson regularly ignored the Supreme Court. The State of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court by enforcing state law in the Cherokee Nation.

Real "Chaos" began with slavish devotion to bad court decisions; Dred Scot led to civil war, Plessy led to segregation, cases following Brown led to forced busing, taking prayer out of school can be argued to have caused much of the subsequent social breakdown, Roe has led to 45 million dead babies and more social disintegration etc.

Separation of Powers and Three Co-Equal Branches means that there is going to be a certain amount of chaos within the government. That is what was supposed to prevent them getting together and tyrannizing the people. What constitutional provision can you cite that the governor or President must do whatever judges say. And if so, aren't "separation" and "co-equal" just lies?

4) "Look at the national chaos caused by San Francisco's mayor when he in all his wisdom decided California voters were wrong when they said marriage was to be between one man and one woman."

Look at it from the other side: It brought their issue to national attention, it got it into court where some judges have agreed with it, it advanced the issue. You can disagree with it. You can argue that the tactic was wrong as a means of fighting their cause. But there is much to learn from it and the fact that we use arguments against the tactic as a means of defeating them should never preclude our use of tactic for our causes. It is hypocrisy on both sides, but in reality there is nothing wrong with using it while complaining about the other side.

5) "The problem with judges needs to be solved with judges."

SCOFLA is majority Republican.
The 11th Circuit is 7-5 Republican.
SCOTUS is 7-2 Republican.
Judge Greer is Republican (I heard).

It very much appears to me that it doesn't matter who has been appointed. Once on the court, their main motivation seems to be to maintain the power of the court.

6) "Those calling for figurative heads to roll need to take the long view. For the end result of your desires to stick, it must be arrived at within the sytem, not from without."

You and I disagree on what constitutes "the system".

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You are right but so is Hewitt. There would be serious long-term consequences of the sort he is talking about; it might nonetheless be worth these consequences for the governor to take action. It's a very close call either way, so those (not you) who are dmonizing Hewitt ought to back off and recognize that there is no single good answer here. And part of the reason it's such a mess is that Congress is sitting on its hands as much or more than the two executives. Having intervened and gotten razor-toothed response from the MSM and the death-lovers, they are the cowards now, refusing to enforce their subpoena, which _would_ have a real, legal, justification.

We should be directing our anger as much at the RINOS in the Florida legislature and the cowards on the House Committeee as at Jeb Bush or W.

And, in all of this, it is very important not to forget that none of this would be happening were it not for George Greer, Michael Schiavo, George Felos and a huge cast of supporting characters in the MSM. If we turn on our own, whether Jeb Bush or Hugh Hewitt, and devour the, we only play into the hands of the leering face of death--Greer, Felos and others. Please, no matter what we say about Bush or Hewitt, we must always conclude by reminding ourselves who the real villains are here. Unless we do that Terri will have died in vain.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

You are right but so is Hewitt.

We can't both be right. But the rest of your comments are very sensible. The main criticism of Jeb however, is that he is too timid for higher office. This was a Jackson or Lincoln moment for him and he blew it.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

It is, as hard as it may be to believe it, possible for two people who disagree both to be right. One may be more right than other, both may be partially right, partially wrong etc. Only if they are making very simple propositions and diametrically opposed to each other in their propositions does the principle of non-contradiction apply. But your propositions and Hewitt's are not simple nor diametrically opposed. You are, in fact, on the same side but disagree in your assessment of what went wrong, who's to blame and how much (and when we have many different people actively involved in the drama, assigning blame is not simple but complex).

You even recognized this when you commented that the rest of what I wrote was sensible. You disagree with Hewitt, fine. Just don't demonize him or the others on your side because that only helps the Other Side, the real villains.

On one point you and Hewitt cannot both be right, of course. If you indeeed wish to make Jeb Bush _the_ single most important villain in it all, then you and Hewitt diametrically disagree and can't both be right.

But do you really want to make Jeb Bush the most important villain? That's all I was really pointing out: in our anger and frustration, let's not lose sight of where this all started and who deserves the most blame.

Then we can profitably disagree (and perhaps persuade each other) about how much blame is deserved by by others: Congress, Schindler lawyers etc. I tried to do some rough distribution of blame in my earlier post, which you found sensible. And we do agree, don't we, that the real villains are Greer and his fellow travelers?

[TChris]

This was a Jackson or Lincoln moment for him and he blew it.

Agreed.

May I also add that those who fear the presumed chaos that would ensue following an executive decision to nullify a court ruling, that the members of the executive and legislative branches are elected, and thus accountable to the people for their actions. Any elected executive who got carried away would still be subject to impeachment by the legislature in dire situations.

For the judiciary to be so insulated from accountability is dangerous in the extreme. If fear on the part of the executive and/or the legislature effectively eliminates any checks and balances vis a vis the judiciary, then tyranny is the only possible outcome.

[churchillbuff]

Hugh Hewitt responded to several calls yesterday by saying that the President has no power to act on behalf of Terri Schiavo contrary to court orders. He characterized the Schiavo case as an injustice like Dred Scot and Plessy that we just have to live with. """""

Then it appears Hugh is not familiar with Lincon's comments on the Dredd Scott decision - - Lincoln said it wasn't binding beyond the particular parties, and the other branches of government could not allow the court to be the final exclusive arbiter of the constitution's meaning.

Google "Lincoln" and "Dred Scott" and you'll find his remarks

Hugh won't acknowledge that the constitutional crisis here is precipitated by Judge Greer's assumption of extra-judicial authority - HE's the one violating separation of powers, commandeering cops to repel a state agency (Florida DCF) and state police - and thumbing nose at congressional subpeonas. For elected officials like Jeb to lie down and take it, is not to do their own duty to defend their constitutional prerogatives. Greer has engineered a coup. Why should Jeb allow him to get away with it?