We talked earlier about Judge Jerry Smith, a Republican appointee on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, throwing a bizarre political tantrum on the bench yesterday, assigning childish homework to the Justice Department. TPM noted that "even conservatives are concerned that the circuit court judges stepped out of bounds Tuesday -- and made Obama's point about judicial overreach for him."
Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, put it this way: "I find all of this a bit incredible."
Prof. Fitzpatrick, you're not the only one. Even some on Fox News think Smith went too far.
It's worth remembering, though, the irony of the underlying criticism here. Judge Smith, like other Republican players this week, has been trying to make the case that President Obama is "attacking" the federal judiciary. He's not, but that's the GOP's new talking point. Smith isn't sure if Obama even supports the concept of judicial review.
The irony, as Jonathan Bernstein explained, is that "a major plank in the GOP platform for the last few years has been to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over entire areas of federal law."
Newt Gingrich is making this a major portion of his campaign right now. Another onetime major presidential candidate, Rick Perry, has vowed to disregard negative Supreme Court rulings. [...]
In other words, there really is a current problem with one political party promoting radical actions to destroy judicial review, and it isn't the president's party. When Obama threatens to ignore a negative ruling from the court or to include (as Gingrich says he would) an "exclusionary" clause in bills in order to supposedly make them non-judiciable -- neither of which have happened yet -- then we have something to talk about.
Quite right. In fact, we can go even further with this.
My friend Kyle Mantyla highlighted President George W. Bush's remarks to the Federalist Society in 2007, and the Republican's warning that unelected judges legislating from the bench represented a "threat to our democracy."
"When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities -- and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others.
"For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop."
Given Obama's mild nudge this week, do Republicans now consider this an "attack" on an independent judiciary, and evidence of Bush's autocratic tendencies?
Indeed, throughout the Bush era, Republican leaders threatened to undermine the power of the federal courts. In one jarring instance, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) went so far as to say judges who are the victims of violence may bring the attacks onto themselves with liberal rulings.
Remind me, were there center-left appeals court judges assigning Republicans homework assignment at the time?
Leave a Comment:
Well we can only HOPE (not on FOX of course) that the American People will have this hit them in the face and realize that the conservative judges have indeed 'jumped the shark' and shown themselves to be the partisan aholes that they actually ARE.
It is indeed incredible that Republicans and conservatives are openly whining and complaining about President Obama having the temerity to stand up for what is is his main domestic policy achievement since taking office. Conservatives chide Obama for "attacking" the courts when it is the GOP that has quite literally advocated armed attacks on judges and courts they deem "activist." Some prominent conservatives have even called for certain judges with whom they disagree to be jailed or removed from office, ignoring the Constitution. For these same people to slam Obama is truly laughable. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Obama should send this moron a letter with a one-page discussion of Marbury v. Madison and two pages of quotes from Republicans over the past 50 years attacking judicial review. And he should sign it, "Drop dead you blithering moron. Sincerely yours,"
There is mounting evidence the Conservative movement in American, as represented by The Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation and other lesser firms, is becoming unhinged from Constitutional and past practiced jurisprudence.
This faction of our beloved nation seems to want to pick a fight with the very foundation to our cultural identity - liberalism! Republicans in particular have donned filtered perceptions in order to deny ligitimate political discourse and debate. Smith's fresh tantrum is perfect evidence these "conservatives" have radical goals for all of us that may put us in harms way vis a vis a creeping authoritariamism they are all too willing to embrace and hoist upon the rest of us.
Their idea of small governance is to exercise power that does not hold their lawless ways in check, while holding the rifraff hoi polloi to a "don't step out of line" law enforcement state.
We can only encourage our working and middle class neighbors, friends and loved ones to get themselves vote-eligible before November, and then to Occupy the Ballot Booth to Vote Republicans Out of office! Get to work! -Kevo
The United States of America, as a Country could perhaps learn something from a show format departure that might last one or more evenings.
Judges are under a lot more duress than a casual observer might think. If a Judge perceives a weakening of their legally granted authority, Court Cases might be much more difficult. Someone has to be unquestionably in charge, as one very small example.
An assembly line worker is expected to follow strict rules, they and others are under some duress most of the work time, not even factoring in personal duress.
There are several types of Farmers, grain, meat, milk, as an example.
Artists, Accountants, Restaurant Owners, Fish Importers, Oil Explorers, Coal Miners, Water Bottlers, Administrators, Professional Activists, Trades People, Sports Stars, Landscapers, CEO’s, CFO’s, Board Members, Executives handling World Operations, Scientists looking for a Grant, Scientists working for a Private Company, Government Scientists, Medical Doctors, Philosophers; America, as other countries, is home to many different ways to see the world. A parent may see something differently than a non-parent. A Farmer may see their fields, a military planner may see across the globe to emerging threats, a Diplomat may reach out to show friendship.
What would happen if all these people were together on a show, or series of shows. If each had the chance to see how the world looked to another, and what pressures the others are experiencing, it could bring about some compelling TV.
Each of us views the world from a perspective, sometimes we know the perspective is forced upon us by some authority figure or a need to fit in, or our own independent observations indicate a perspective is valid.
Most people are kind and civilized when they talk to each other. Often, people learn from each other if enjoyable social conversation occurs, even if there are opinion disagreements. The movies may show disagreements end in severe conflict, but to a lot of people, learning about another’s reasons for having a position on something is worthwhile.
I guess nothing short of committing murder will cause anyone here to criticize the Presidnt. What he has said, for the second time, is there are not three co-equal branches of government. The executive and legislative branches can do anything, and the judiciary can only affirm.
I'm also amused at the line of defense. The instintive reaction instead is to blame Republicans instead of defending Obama on the merits. You can't, because he "misspoke".
He didn't misspeak; he said exactly what he meant to. And he said no such thing about the branches of government. It's Republicans making mountains out of molehills who are the ones who should be apologizing. They took a reasonable statement, one much more reasonable than many GOP statements over the years, and tried to act like it was a mortal threat. STFU and GTFO.
"What he has said, for the second time, is there are not three co-equal branches of government."
Barack Obama has said nothing of the sort. Could you please point out where you believe did? Please be careful to provide a direct quote.
"I guess nothing short of committing murder will cause anyone here to criticize the Presidnt."
It's spelled "president" and... are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that Barack Obama, the president of the United States is threatening to murder members of the supreme court who disagree with him???
Sorry for the typo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/bruised-obama-tries-to-walk-back-his-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/04/gIQAEgxsuS_blog.html for comment on what the President said, and how he tried to back track.
And in no way was I implying what you think. I was using a common expression
Tom, I read your link and I also read the actual text from the news conference, and NO, President Obama DID NOT SAY what you claim he said.
However, it is easy to see why you didn't know any better. You got your information from Jennifer Rubin, a right wing OPINION blogger for the Washington Post, who got her information from the National Review.
You REALLY NEED to start fact checking these people before you quote them!!!!!
You also need to get spell check.
They did that. It was called WWII. If we are placed in a position to not trust those we elect to govern, or those appointed to oversee the elected, we have every right to question and protest; Less evil is possible when people are paying attention.
The Dems have been far too accommodating when it comes to the appointment of judges. It is time for the Dems to take off the gloves. They need to tell the Republicans that the next Republican president is going to have problems with appointments to the same degree that Obama is having with his appointments. In fact, Dems should tell the Republicans that any open seats where nominations have been stalled will not be filled by the Republicans.
Especially when they are demonized and called "attackers", when they have been nothing of the sort. They need to find some more spine.
The RW talkers are so intent on saying something to make people find Obama a dictator, that they are calling the purring kitty cat Democrats attackers, I guess they are feeling vulnerable?
I think that a lot of what comes out of Republican pie holes is simple projection. They accuse the ACA of inserting government between doctors and patients, and then when they take over a few state governments they write their own laws that actually do insert government between doctors and (female) patients. They accuse Democrats of wanting to end Medicare "as we know it" when they've been trying to do that since Medicare was first created. I could go on, but we all know the litany of asinine accusations. They continue to tar Democrats and leftists with precisely the things they wish to do or have already done or are in the process of doing. Too few people, I'm afraid, are twigging as to what is going on. But it's simple, really: whatever Republicans are accusing Democrats of doing or wanting to do, that is really what they wish to do themselves given the chance. Every accusation of Democratic perfidy is really just the GOP giving away their own game plan.
I think the Justice Department should just type up the Constitution, single spaced and sign it. When it comes up short of the three pages, let the 5th Circuit draw their own conclusions as to what, esoterically or legally, that implies. What can they do hold President Obama in contempt for citing the Constitution?
I once suggested that the three page letter that Smith demanded just be a robopen of "I will not say anything that upsets Jerry Smith." written however many times it takes to fill three pages.
Let me revise that. It is a better idea just to fill it with all the various quotes that different republicans have made along the lines of what to do with activist judges, the more repugnant the better. And be sure to give proper attribution. We wouldn't want to be charged with plagiarism.