NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
This is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny.
Posted by: Tom DeLay at 11:25 AM

The Supreme Court’s decision last week in Boumediene v. Bush has justifiably called down the exasperation, incredulity, and anger of people who have actually read the United States Constitution. In case you missed it, the 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by the Court’s four avowed liberals extended for the first time in history habeas corpus rights to captured military combatants.

In doing so, the Court struck down a 2006 law passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, which specified the procedures by which captured terrorists held in military prisons could receive due process. The 2006 law, the Military Commissions Act, was only written, passed, and enacted because the Supreme Court in 2004 demanded that Congress do so. Put another way, as of last week, the Supreme Court – and more specifically, Justice Kennedy – has declared itself the final authority on making war, incarcerating enemy combatants, and, indeed, on the American people’s right to self-government.

This is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny.

Neither the United States military, its elected commanders in the executive branch, nor its representatives in Congress are now in control of America’s prosecution of the war on terror. Justice Kennedy is, or he seems to think.

Until he is disabused of this notion by a Congress with the guts to assert itself, the following not only may happen, but will, and very quickly:

- Captured terrorists will refuse to answer any questions without access to a lawyer;

- Captured terrorists will demand the public disclosure of the military’s evidence against them, thus exposing the means and methods employed by our intelligence community to gather such evidence;

- Captured terrorists will demand to confront their accusers, who will be soldiers on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, in open court back here in the states; and,

- Captured terrorists will go venue shopping, filing their habeas claims in dozens of courts in hopes of getting the most liberal activist judge they can find.

The question isn’t how bad this decision is – it’s an outrage. The question is, what are conservative legislators going to do about it. Beginning in 1996 and continuing throughout the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we had an aggressive, concrete agenda to combat judicial activism and supremacy.

Because Congress creates lower federal courts, Congress can also set its jurisdiction. Thus, except for the narrow field of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction – cases involving individual states, ambassadors, and the like – Congress can simply remove the Supreme Court from the picture. A “court stripping” strategy would reassert the legislative and executive branches’ co-equal status as interpreters of the Constitution. Much of the groundwork has already been set.

In September, 2004, the House passed the “Pledge Protection Act,” which removed the jurisdiction of lower federal courts and the Supreme Court to review any controversies surrounding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 2004 and 2005, House conservatives introduced and vocally promoted similar legislation stripping from federal courts jurisdiction over any question stemming from a public official’s acknowledgement of God as the basis for our laws and government. The House also passed similar court-stripping legislation pertaining to homosexual marriage in 2004.

And all the while, Republican Houses of Representatives passed resolution condemning judicial activism, including judicial mischief such basing decisions on foreign law. Finally, in November, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to break up the consistently radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals so to introduce some degree of rational jurisprudence to its jurisdiction.

The principles of that agenda can and should be revived and made a major issue in this year’s general election. Resolutions can be introduced condemning the decision, and these superficial actions are a good start. But Congress has far greater authority to end judicial activism than most people realize.

Contrary to the Court’s liberal majority, the United States is our government and our country, not just theirs.Congress has the power to take it back, and Republicans looking for a clear-cut issue that differentiates us from the Democrats should start taking it back.





« Previous1Next »

FEATURES FEATURES

Bailout Bill's Top 10 List

Posted by: Michele Bachmann
10/6/2008

A Flawed, Funny, Furious Attack on Faith

Posted by: Michael Medved
10/6/2008

Bozo Biden's Bizarre Hezbollah Fantasy

Posted by: Michael Medved
10/5/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 1 Minutes 56 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 33 Seconds Ago
Last updated 10 Minutes 15 Seconds Ago
Last updated 13 Minutes 52 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 6 Minutes 57 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
 May 2008
 April 2008
 March 2008
 February 2008
 January 2008
 December 2007
 November 2007
 October 2007
 September 2007
 August 2007
 July 2007
 June 2007
 May 2007
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Sherry, yes, we can sense the fear
 Re: McCain's Speech Today
  By Julie
Because Of The Radicals In The DP
 Re: Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
  By Jorge
Babble on Mumon, We all
 Re: Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
  By eddie
Palin cares about private property?
 Re: Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
  By PC
Dave
 Re: Not If Obama, Pelosi and Reid Are Pushing Through Their Massive Tax Hikes
  By Salty Alaskan
Wow thank goodness Ayers isn't running..
 Re: Ayers to kids: "Kill your parents!" Ayers to courts:"Don't hold teen murderers responsible!"
  By J
Ayers won't matter
 Re: Ayers to kids: "Kill your parents!" Ayers to courts:"Don't hold teen murderers responsible!"
  By Bruno Strozek
The economy is not Obama's play
 Re: Three Points Among Likely Voters
  By vonryansexpress
Gads you people are funny....
 Re: Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
  By Mumon
Munck,
 Re: Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
  By eddie
Kennebunkport?
 Re: A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Great Depression 2.0
  By Pasadena Phil
MAJORITY VOTE DOES NOT = "RIGHT"
 Re: Gloves Come Off: McCain to Hit Obama With Tough Rhetoric
  By Lucid Penny
wise woman no apology
 Re: Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
  By cimarrone
I like Christina's comment
 Re: McCain's Speech Today
  By Sherry
Slight Correction
 Re: Three Points Among Likely Voters
  By Bob Munck
Hugh, you won't have to wait that long
 Re: A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Great Depression 2.0
  By southsider
Maybe
 Re: Three Points Among Likely Voters
  By Pasadena Phil
Cons seem to care about fidelity
 Re: Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
  By PC
Back to Mr. Lewis's post on Ms. Parker
 Re: Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
  By vonryansexpress
Jorge 10:50 PM
 Re: Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
  By Bob Munck

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll