Replies

Look again folks: There are judicial despots who are immune to the rule of law. They're above the law and can do anything they want. From Pinellas County Judge George Greer to U.S Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeal Judge Stephen Reinhardt and company. Politicians lose control of their bladder at the sight of judicial outrages and cringe at holding out of control judges accountable for their conduct. It wasn't Terri Schiavo who was in a coma; its our justice system. The krytocrats who rule our country are its new criminal class.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

I suspect members of Congress are a little embarrassed to be outfoxed by a local politician-judge. I suspect some of them are shocked to find out how easy it is to ignore a congressional subpoena and an act of Congress.

However, if there are no consequences for these actions, then every American should feel free to ignore future subpoenas and future acts of Congress as Judge George Greer did and as the 11th Circuit did.

Mr. Farah is correct: we have come a long way from Peter Rodino's Judiciary Committee to today's lily-livered acceptance of Judge Greer's contemptuous treatment of Congressional subpoenas.

Farah has some good points but he misses 2 important ones:

1. A serious flaw in the Constitution is that appointment of federal judges is left to the Senate, and not the House. One reason elimination of the fillibuster is so constitutional is because a judge may get 51 (out of 100) floor votes in the Senate, but those 51 Senators may represent ONLY EIGHTEEN PERCENT of the US population. The injustice of this is obvious and inherent. What conservatives should move for--and yes this will take a long time of course--is a constitutional amendment to move federal judicial nominations to a body (House) representative of the people and sensitive to popular will, and away from a remote, elitist body (Senate) out of touch with the masses of Americans.

2. The real problem, though, is not 1., above. Rather JUDICIAL REVIEW itself is the real problem. Judicial review of legislation passed by legislators elected by a free people is expressed nowhere in the US Constitution. Furthermore it is inherently un(small d)democratic. Legislators and the POTUS, along with state governors and legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it should be assumed that any legislation passed by the above bodies and signed into law by the above executives is consitutional per se. Judicial review merely spits in the face of popular will. I hate to praise Europe (or even the UK) but they have had the good sense not to be burdened by this odious doctrine.