As most of us know, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is trying to avoid facing his own ethical lapses by attacking others, including the judiciary. This might simply seem humorous (an exterminator with a degree in biology suddenly acting as an expert on the judiciary) if it weren’t for the fact that similar strategies were part of what led to many of the horrors of the last century.
In trouble? Find someone else to blame. Direct attention away from yourself.
On the face of it, Delay’s current round of charges seem particularly laughable. He’s after Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (himself a conservative) for conducting research on the Internet and for considering international law in his decision making. Oh, my! Using the Internet to find things out! My goodness! Kennedy might even come across a blog with links to other information, perhaps even to books and scholarly journals! And international law? How nefarious can you get? Them foreigners, they ain’t never up to no good.
What particularly bothers DeLay about consideration of international law is that the justices used examination of it as part of their Supreme Court determination that executing children is unconstitutional. To DeLay, discovering what others believe is “judicial activism.” On The Tony Snow Show, Delay said:
What’s much more outrageous is the idea that DeLay can even argue that our Constitution exists outside of and separate from international law and the international community. We are part of this world, not above it–and our actions, even our laws, should recognize that–and our Supreme Court rightly agrees. This is not “judicial activism” but bowing to the reality of our place in the world. And complaining that Kennedy does his own research on the Internet? Today, that’s as silly as complaining that Kennedy uses a microwave to heat his oatmeal.
But then, as we all know, what Kennedy does (or doesn’t do) isn’t the point.
DeLay’s the point. Power’s the point.
In his quest for power, DeLay isn’t really after Kennedy, but after the federal courts as a whole. Somehow, he got hold of Article III of the Constitution:
And this is what is really scary: On the Snow show, DeLay said:
In other words, he wants Congress to have the power to review court decisions–for he clearly isn’t talking about good personal behavior.
If DeLay has any success at all in this–any at all–our entire system of government is doomed. No longer will there be separation of power. No longer will there be checks and balances.
By deflecting attention from his own bad behavior, DeLay is attempting to further his own quest for power. Nothing, not even calls for investigations into his behavior, will deflect him from that path.
As Frank Rich wrote in last Sundays The New York Times:
Anything else is beside the point.
We should be scared. We should be very scared.
[Cross-posted on BarBlog].
We are part of this world, not above it–and our actions, even our laws, should recognize that–and our Supreme Court rightly agrees. This is not “judicial activism” but bowing to the reality of our place in the world.
Well put and exactly the point they refuse to realize.
I for one am terrified, but trying not to let the make me helpless to act.
I wish I could find a picture and story online of something that was reported on our local news yesterday.
Ben, of Ben and Jerry’s (God bless them and praise ‘Fudge Brownie’), have built a ‘Spank DeLay’ your vehicle – they’re calling it the ‘SpankMobile’. It’s a car towing a trailer, and on that trailer is a HUGE replica of Uncle Sam, and he has Tom DeLay over his knee and is spanking him. Uncle Sam has a big ‘ol hand that swats and everything. The SpankMobile is currently in Houston for the next week and a half and will then move on to another location.
If I can find anything on this, I’ll post it. It’s quite amusing. 😉
Cross-post from BooMan’s diary this morning:
Afraid? I’m feeling better by the day with this guy. The Hammer has a broken handle and doesn’t even know it yet. There is no “if”. The shoe fits:
McCarthyism took its toll on many individuals and on the nation. No one was safe from charges recklessly made from inside the walls of congressional immunity. [edit]
Not all these accusations were made by Senator McCarthy himself; but he and his cult were never known for any sense of discrimination in their choice of targets or in determining who held the gun.
[Dwight D. Eisenhower, in Mandate for Change].
Give ’em enough rope….
I pray you are right.
This phrase, applied to Judges, has a technical legal meaning derived from British practice well known to the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.
In the Anti-Federalist Papers, Brutus discusses the effect of Judge’s holding office during good behaviour.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
“The great reason assigned, why the judges in Britain ought to be commissioned during good behaviour, is this, that they may be placed in a situation, not to be influenced by the crown, to give such decisions, as would tend to increase its powers and prerogatives. While the judges held their places at the will and pleasure of the king, on whom they depended not only for their offices, but also for their salaries, they were subject to every undue influence. If the crown wished to carry a favorite point, to accomplish which the aid of the courts of law was necessary, the pleasure of the king would be signified to the judges. And it required the spirit of a martyr, for the judges to determine contrary to the king’s will. — They were absolutely dependent upon him both for their offices and livings. The king, holding his office during life, and transmitting it to his posterity as an inheritance, has much stronger inducements to increase the prerogatives of his office than those who hold their offices for stated periods, or even for life. Hence the English nation gained a great point, in favour of liberty. When they obtained the appointment of the judges, during good behaviour, they got from the crown a concession, which deprived it of one of the most powerful engines with which it might enlarge the boundaries of the royal prerogative and encroach on the liberties of the people. But these reasons do not apply to this country, we have no hereditary monarch; those who appoint the judges do not hold their offices for life, nor do they descend to their children. The same arguments, therefore, which will conclude in favor of the tenor of the judge’s offices for good behaviour, lose a considerable part of their weight when applied to the state and condition of America. But much less can it be shewn, that the nature of our government requires that the courts should be placed beyond all account more independent, so much so as to be above controul”.
Brutus seems to oppose giving the American courts so much power and independence. Incidentally this is a contemporary opponent of the 1787 constitution who expressly recognises that the Supreme Court will have the power to invalidate Congressional legislation for not complying with the constitution. This disproves the suggestion that Marbury v Madison was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by Chief Justice Marshall, which is another idea DeLay and his frienfs have been pushing.
Thanks. That’s a wonderful comment. I, at least, learned something.