News Snipet 'Blog

Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Judges, and those who want to preserve judicial tyranny, are hoping to trick people into following an old adage with a new twist, "if you don't have anything nice to say about judges, just don't say anything at all." Phooey on that. The Senate Judicial Committee staged a tribute to judges Wednesday and invited a sympathetic federal judge to star in the show. The Chicago judge whose husband and mother were killed by an angry litigant urged U.S. senators to denounce the Rev. Pat Robertson and members of Congress who harshly criticized federal judges. U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow said in her testimony, "Even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks and violent acts of vengeance, fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them." There is no doubt that judges have come under harsh criticism in recent years, and it should continue. It would be a big mistake for anyone to succumb to this thinly veiled effort to try to shield the judicial branch of government from necessary public scrutiny and criticism. Frantic liberals, having failed repeatedly to expand their political influence in the elected branches of government, are desperately trying to cling to the power that they exercise through the judicial branch. Judges have transformed their chambers into super legislatures where they rewrite or strike down laws passed by elected representatives and replace them with rulings that have the force of law. In some cases, they don't even pretend to get their direction from the Constitution, but rather from their own estimation of contemporary values and, in some cases, even values imported from foreign countries. Judge Lefkow shamelessly used the tragedy that visited her family as a political tool by implying that the death of her husband and mother was triggered by rhetorical attacks by conservatives. In fact, the man who killed her husband and mother was specifically angry that she had ruled against him in a malpractice case. To suggest that he was inspired by political rhetoric is patently absurd. Just what did Misters Robertson and DeLay say that is allegedly threatening to the lives of judges? On May 1, Robertson said on ABC's This Week that liberal judges are "destroying the fabric that holds our nation together" and that they pose a threat "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." It is a completely defensible notion that liberalism, enforced by unelected judges, can do more long-term harm to the social fabric of America than any foreign enemies, whether they are terrorists or communists. Liberals would disagree of course, and that is their right, but it is also the right of conservatives to draw that conclusion and state it publicly. Congressman DeLay has been castigated for saying, in response to judges rulings in the Terry Schiavo case, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." DeLay is among those who favor congressional action to reign in the seemingly unchecked power of judges to have the final say on every law and disagreement in the land. I hope DeLay is right that the time will come for judges to pay for their unilateral expansion of their own powers by inspiring Congress to expressly limit the powers of judges. Again, the wisdom of such a wish may be debatable, but is not irresponsible. I join in advising people of influence to keep their political rhetoric civil and constructive. It's more effective that way, and more demonstrative of their position on the public stage. However, to categorize the comments of Robertson or DeLay as inflammatory and irresponsible is both nonsensical and disingenuous. The attempt to muzzle strong conservative criticism of federal judges is a disguised effort to shield judges from public scrutiny and accountability. It should worry conservatives that the Senate Judiciary Committee is entertaining such an agenda. Ralph Bristol
posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/19/2005 10:21:00 AM  
  • At 5/19/2005 06:03:00 PM, Blogger chickenhawk said…

    Now I am a liberal (mental disorder? I feel fine.) but these senators are just all ridiculous. And I will point out the comments of Robertson as inflammatory and irresponsible. They are nonsensical. Pat Robertson is a loon and to liken this whole judicial controversy to being worse than 3,000 murders is part of the reason why most on the left think he is an absolute nutbag who belongs in the loony bin. A statement like that only confirms what liberals think they already know about him. DeLay's comments, wherever you stand, can at least be justified being a passionate statement from a passionate man; fair enough. Anyway, round and round we go: The Boston Globe, of all papers, displayed the hypocrisy of our senators, with a little photoclip of Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, with quotes next to the two circa 1998 and then 2005. It shows Kennedy saying that Clinton's nominees deserve an up and down vote, Hatch saying that the process should be stalled and reviewed. Then it shows Kennedy's quote from this year, eerily similar to Hatch's from 1998, and Hatch's eerily similar to Kennedy's from 1998. Hypocrisy and childish arguments in Congress; the standard of the world's lone superpower.

  • At 5/20/2005 05:51:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Brilliant analysis by CH!

    When are we going to see the CH Blog?

    CH, I think the term "liberal" is a relative term, just like conservative.

  • At 5/20/2005 05:18:00 PM, Blogger chickenhawk said…

    Agreed. It is comical how those terms are used to insult the other side. Anyway, enjoy the weekend. As always, they do not last long enough.

Post a Comment
<< Home
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".

Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.

Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.

In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Template by

Free Blogger Templates


free hit counter