Checks and balances for the judiciary
11th Circuit Judge Birch, a 41 appointee as ABC notes, on the case of the moment:
“While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty.” Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: “In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution.”
Hmmm. Let’s go to the blueprint:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office….
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Boy howdy. So the Congress gets to regulate the Supreme Court. What a great idea. Haven’t heard much about that on CNN. And Congress could wipe out the current circuit court system and put in a new one, as long as it doesn’t cut the pay of current judges. Or does the blueprint need to be read in a fancier, less literal way, like the First Amendment under McCain Feingold?
This space has written before on the arrogance of monopolists; let’s state here that the arrogance is a function of the monopolist’s position, not his good or ill will. It is evident that many judges believe that they are the checks and balances of the system, not themselves subject to checks and balances, the way the President or Congress are. We are well past time to change that false perception.