Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Tom DeLay is out of control
From The Associated Press via ABC:
WASHINGTON Apr 19, 2005 — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
Tom DeLay ... words fail me at how outrageous this is. Not the rhetoric. Not even the points of his argument, because some judges do appear to stray into their own little worlds in deciding cases.
But because of the following paragraph, which was cut from many versions of the wire story because it was at the bottom:
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
That's scary. The crazy bastard wants to use politics -- his own right-wing brand -- to define "good behavior" on the bench. That should've been the lead on this story! Read it here. The scary graf is on the jump.
--ER
WASHINGTON Apr 19, 2005 — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
Tom DeLay ... words fail me at how outrageous this is. Not the rhetoric. Not even the points of his argument, because some judges do appear to stray into their own little worlds in deciding cases.
But because of the following paragraph, which was cut from many versions of the wire story because it was at the bottom:
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
That's scary. The crazy bastard wants to use politics -- his own right-wing brand -- to define "good behavior" on the bench. That should've been the lead on this story! Read it here. The scary graf is on the jump.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Why do you think it's scary to define "good behavior?" Granted, I don't think any one particular person (or party) should be the sole definer of such, but whom would you choose to perform the task?
# posted by 
: 12:35 PM
: 12:35 PM
1. Is common sense so dead? If a male justice hasn't been caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy (reverse it for the lady justices) ... if he or she hasn't broken a law ... if he or she shows up for work ... then he or she is exhibiting good behavior. ... 2. Such matters are constitutionally relegated to the Senate, not the House, for just this reason; in theory, the Senate is supposed to be more deliberative; the House is supposed to be filled with a bunch of yahoos who are closer to their constituencies, and this is borne out by the freak Texans who elected DeLay and the freak Californians who elected Nancy Pelosi. 3. If anyone thinks DeLay doesn't want to impose some sort of litmus test on justices and judges, they haven't been paying attention to his hardball-playing pol's career. 4. It is perfectly acceptable for the judicial branch to tell Congress to go jump in the Potomac; it's called "separation of powers." .. DeLay seems to have actually gone too far this time; the House ethics committee reportedly is getting off its can finally -- probably as a direct result of his hubris.
Ah, but there is the rub. One of the inherent beauties about the "balance of powers" is that not all of the branches of govenment were intended to change course on a dime. The legislative and executive branches change periodically by election; the judicial branch, i.e., Supreme Court, was intended to be a very slow-to-change, stable branch, put in place by appointment and ratification.
So there's where the changes need to take place, in the appointment and ratification phases of service, not by criticism by someone in DeLay's position. He's got no business, constitutionally, trying to find a "good behavior" loophole to try to control the composition of the courts.
So there's where the changes need to take place, in the appointment and ratification phases of service, not by criticism by someone in DeLay's position. He's got no business, constitutionally, trying to find a "good behavior" loophole to try to control the composition of the courts.
Amen, Trixie. John Marshall started this. It's a little late for a quick redo. Also, I'm pretty sure Congress has the constitutional authority to change the size of the judiciary. So, if yer serious about reining 'em in, then DO IT. Remember FDR's court-packing plan? Congress didn't balk because it didn't have the authority to enlarge the court, I don't think (I confess I need to review this), but because it was politically unpopular.
One other point. I'm not sure what "international law" the good justice based a decision on -- I mean, I just don't know. But this is the biggest "poison pill" in the Constitution: Once the United States has a treaty with another country or countries, that treaty, under the Constitution, then has the full force of law -- it has become an organic part of the Constitution. Egad. That alone is reason enough to run from Kyoto, IMHRO.
Post a Comment
<< Home
