Next we should starve the courts

Town Hall ^ | April 12, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Wonder Warthog]

Good article. Schafly is correct on all points. Of course, the REAL problem is that Congress and President Bush basically caved in to the judiciary, instead of asserting the rights and privileges of THEIR "separate and co-equal" branches of the Government. What SHOULD have been done is for the Federal executive branch to send in a group of Federal Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, and the court decision be damned.

Unless and until the other branches get enough cojones to stand up to the judicial branch, we can count on much more of the same.

[Brilliant]

What we should do is starve the CIVIL courts. But beef up the criminal courts.

[Mudboy Slim]

The solution to this Judicial Branch problem is MassImpeachment of Federal Judges!!

FReegards...MUD

[mlc9852]

Good ideas but it won't go anywhere. Congress will not take on the judiciary. The dictators in black robes will continue to make laws for us all.

[EricT.]

Preach it, Brother Mudboy!

[atlaw]

The solution to this Judicial Branch problem is MassImpeachment of Federal Judges!!

Which ones, and for what? Some specifics would be nice.

[joe fonebone]

Ginsberg............for stating that the use of foreign law in SCOTUS ruling is allowable..........that is a direct violation of her oath of office..............

[atlaw]

"[A] mere probate judge in Florida thumbed his nose at a congressional subpoena..."

How dare that puny little state ignore the feds. Federalism is, after all, a liberal idea (as of about three weeks ago).

[Mudboy Slim]

I'm with ya, brother...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"Which ones, and for what? Some specifics would be nice."

All judges who legislate from the bench, and the charges would begin with Abuse of Power and go on from there, my FRiend. Also, those Supreme Court Justices who reference foreign precedents to support their skewed rulings deserve to be ousted immediately. As far as the SCOTUS goes, I say we start by impeaching Ginsberg and Breyer and Souter...they are amongst the worst offenders!!

FReegards...MUD

[atlaw]

Correction. For taking account of international laws and mores in making a ruling under U.S. law.

I find it a little bit of a stretch to use a judge's recognition of factual reality as grounds for impeachment.

[general_re]

Which ones, and for what?

The ones who are the wrong sort of activist, for being the wrong sort of activist. Not in so many words, of course...

[PGalt]

Great post. Just starting Levin's "Men in Black". Up to Chapter 3. Great so far!

[atlaw]

All judges who legislate from the bench...

That's not very helpful. Which ones, and for what specific acts of "bench legislation?"

And lest you forget, the current Supreme Court may be fairly identified as the most conservative court in the last 75 years. Kind of rash to ditch a panel of judges that has consistently ruled favorably on conservative issues for one (rather oddly) perceived decisional indiscretion.

[The Great Yazoo]

What if the courts were limited in their exercise of judicial power with respect to private citizens as they are limited with respect to the sovereign?

What I mean is that judges, legislators, state's attorneys (prosecutors in Florida) have judicial and legislative immunity for their wrongful acts except when clearly outside their roles as judges, legislators, or prosecutors.
What if similar immunities were afforded private citizens in the course of their duties?

Similarly, the concept of "sovereign immunity" works to limit damages that a court may impose upon a governmental unit (and in Florida, it limits attorneys' fees that a successful litigant can be charged by that litigant's attorneys).
Isn't what's good for the "sovereign" goose good for the citizen gander (or is that "subject" not "citizen")?

While such approaches would not directly address the issues raised by Mrs. Schlafly, I really think the reasons the courts are "run-away" in the first place is to further certain economic interests. Attacking the economic incentive at the source may be better than a head-on assault that can be spun as "taking away citizens' rights to redress grievances."

[joe fonebone]

Correction noted.......however, using factual reality from another country's law does indeed violate the oath of office......our laws are based upon our constitution, not htose of other contries constitutions.........

[The Great Yazoo]

Is your picture on the back cover of some yellow pages somewhere? Or on a billboard proclaiming you "for the people" or somesuch?

Just wondering.

[chimera]

You've summarized the problem nicely. The original concept of the Founders is inoperable. The system of checks and balances implicit in a tripartite system wherein the different branches are (theoretically) co-equal has broken down. So you have the spectacle we have today, and the tragic travesty of the Schiavo case, wherein one branch of government is abusing its authority by ordering the death of an innocent citizen of the land, and the other branches cower in fear before and submit in despicable obsequiousness to the black-robed tyrant.

[atlaw]

A prime example of what passes for rational debate these days. Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer the conservative notion of factual discourse, rather than the liberal notion of pointless insult.