Congressman Seeks to Bypass Courts - Again

[dr_mabeuse]

The Sunday 7/10/05 Chicago Tribune has a cover story about the attempt by Rep James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc), head of the house Judiciary Committee, to force a US Court of Appeals to change its ruling in a drug case because he didn't think the defendant got a harsh enough sentence.

This attempt by the Congress to interfere with the courts' decisions is an echo of what happened in the Teri Sciavo case, where congress also attempted to overrule a court's decision by legal fiat, and marks a growing trend of Congress to "correct" what it sees as judicial oversights.

Sensenbrenner is also talking about creating an office of Inspector General to "oversee the federal judiciary."

"I do not believe that creating an IG for the judiciary will violate the separation-of-powers doctrine that promotes the independence of the three branches of government," he said.

Said a legal scholar named Zlotnick: "To try and influence a court ruling is entirely inappropriate, particularly in an ex parte [without notifying all parties] proceeding. They are trying to intimidate the judiciary." [my bolds]

Said Charles Geyh, a professor of law at Indiana University School of Law, " This is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise control over judges and their decisions."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...00352jul10,1,5787813.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ugh. Let's not forget the Most Disgusting Comment Award:

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took the Senate floor in April to criticize a Supreme Court ruling in a death penalty case and suggested that recent incidents of courthouse violence may be the result of anger over judges' decisions.

Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public."

What a complete and utter pillock.

 

[rgraham666]

Why should we be surprised?

The neo-Marxists have no belief in our system. It is only a tool to be used, and it is to be discarded when no longer useful.

Then they'll replace it with something more to their liking. We won't have to waste our time with unnecessary things like evidence and impartiality then. The Truth will rule and there will be nothing to stop it.

 

[rgraham666]

Sensenbrenner is also talking about creating an office of Inspector General to "oversee the federal judiciary."

Meaning the neo-Marxists are going to appoint a commissar to 'oversee' the judiciary and make sure that proper neo-Marxist principles are followed.

Plus ca change and all that.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You know, I've seen you use that phrase a lot, RG. Why do you call them neo-Marxists?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

they can create as amny offices as they want. And they can pass any kind of rediculousy obvious attempt to control the courts as they want. They can't win, unless the courts let them. Because the moment a court rules the law is unconstituional the vry organs of the executive they would count on to enforce their will would become the organs that enforced the court's will.

They are cock sure and drunk with power. What they don't realize, is their power madness was anticipated 200 years ago by the founding fathers. And controls were written in to the document that governs us all to keep them from abusing that power.

Teri's law proved that even staunchly conservative justices will defend their turf against congressional intrusion.I doubt even Bush can find a judge who will willingly accede to becoming a lacky of the congress.

Anyone who proposes such things should be voted out at the next opportunity. They represent a menace to every value americans hold dear. It probably won't happen, but that's how it should work.

 

[rgraham666]

You know, I've seen you use that phrase a lot, RG. Why do you call them neo-Marxists?

Quoting from one of my favourite books.

MARXIST The only serious functioning Marxists left in the West are the senior management of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are neo-conservative.

Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based upon the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated market-place in which the strongest win. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those who don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.

…

The only disagreement between the neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide open struggle.

Some people are surprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However, ideas once launched, become public property. and they often appear in several guises before discovering their true form.

The Doubter's Companion - A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense by John Ralston Saul

When I first read this, I laughed and laughed. I've never since stopped thinking of them as anything but neo-Marxist.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Sensenbrenner's been around for a long time. He should know better.

Congress seems to be involved in a race to the right. No one wants to even appear moderate anymore.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sensenbrenner's been around for a long time. He should know better.

Congress seems to be involved in a race to the right. No one wants to even appear moderate anymore.

The message fromt he last election is pretty clear. the religious right delivers the votes. Much like the unions and political machines used to. Why knock your self out, trying to apeal to a broad spectrum, when you can just move right and have a block delivered to you with little or no work on your part and at little risk, since your conservative base is caught between the devil and the seep blue sea, either voting for you despite your new lean or abandoning any hope of having their ideals met and vote for your democratic opponent.

 

[Guest]

Actually there is this blog that is saying what this is all about, is that the Federal Prosecutor on the case did not fight the "low" sentence and should have appealed.

Apparently, they want to say the prosecuter is incompetent.

The prosecutor in question is Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the prosecutor investigating who outed Plame as a CIA agent. Increaseingly, that is looking like Karl Rove.

The blogger muses about Fitzgerald : "He sounds like a pretty straight shooter. And a pretty scary prosecutor. I wonder if there is a plan afoot to pull an Archibald Cox. They've learned their lesson, though; this time they'd fire him for "cause." "

Archbald Cox, for those two young to remember or from outside the US, was the Watergate Special Prosecutor Nixon decided he wanted to fire when he started getting too close.

From Wikipedia : On October 20, 1973, in an event termed the Saturday Night Massacre, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered that Cox be fired as Watergate scandal special prosecutor, upon Cox's insistence on obtaining secret White House tapes. Rather than comply with this order, both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned. The order was ultimately carried out by the Solicitor General, Robert Bork.

Bork later was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan, and not confirmed. Also from Wikipedia : "The history of Bork's disputed nomination is still a lightening-rod in the contentious debate over the limits of the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" that the U.S. Constitution requires for presidential judicial nominies."