Thursday, March 24, 2005

Judicial Oligarchy

No, we're not there yet, but if we continue to allow political issues to be settled by judicial fiat, we will be (and no, I am not talking about Terri Schiavo).

Ann Coulter has been a lightning rod for many because she has written some outlandish things, although she wrote them tongue-in-cheek. I suspect that she truly did not want the New York Time building destroyed instead of the World Trade Center. I enjoy reading her columns.

Via BlogMeister USA (thanks Pam), this piece by Ann Coulter, STARVED FOR JUSTICE. She uses the Terri Schiavo case as a starting point for a discussion, in her own inimitable way, of judicial power and its abuse.
I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature — or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.
And this pointed bit;
What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous — literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped — solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.
Read her column, even if only to get her entirely gratuitous and delightful stabs at the Democrats.

AND, she does know something about the Law.

I have previously written on judicial power here, Overturn Marbury v. Madison?

No comments: