Culture of Life!

[mazzie]

Tom DeLay thinks it's time for the legislature to exercise its authority over the judiciary to keep judges from thumbing their noses at Congress (otherwise known as not allowing themselves to be intimidated by radical conservative fanatic bullies - hell, even Cheney knows that). The good news is that Rick Santorum can name chapter and verse from the Constitution to support that the legislature has authority over the courts. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas (the state wherein an infant was taken off life support against his parents' wishes the same week Congress was all atwitter about Schiavo. Ironically enough, the hospital had the power to overrule the parents' decision because of a law that then Governor Bush signed) said he wondered if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."

In other good news about the sanctity of life, BBC is reporting on the current American scandal of pharmacists denying women birth control on "moral grounds." Chins up, though, we're still (for the moment) ahead of Iran, where a woman can get an abortion, but only in the first four months and cases where the mother's life is in danger or the child would be handicapped. (Handicapped children are a terrible emotional and financial drain, see.) Beyond that, she only needs permission from the father, three doctors, and a coroner.

In other happy news in that region, Don Rumsfeld has declared we don't have an exit strategy for Iraq, we have a "victory strategy." Despite the happy cheers from the troops whose morale he was there to boost (you know, the army we have, not the army we want) "victory strategy" is right up there with "mission accomplished," "bring 'em on," and "culture of life" as far as I'm concerned. The right wing sure does have its rhetoric down, though.

Oh, and the woman who was the National Security Advisor when the single most deadly foreign attack on American soil took place was promoted to Secretary of State. (Yeah, I know that's old news, but it still boggles my mind.)

Comments

[beeeej.livejournal.com]

Tragically, Congress does have a significant amount of authority over the types of cases for which the federal courts have jurisdiction. See Article III of the Constitution.

The question of whether Congress would be immensely stupid to try to limit jurisdiction over such controversial subjects is a different matter entirely... plus, chances are pretty good that if they try to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction, someone will challenge those specific limits as unconstitutional, and then the very courts whose jurisdiction they're trying to limit will be the ones who get to decide whether those limits are proper.

I don't think they really want to limit the courts' jurisdiction - I think they're trying to pick an enormous fight that will allow them to bring some judicial impeachments.

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

thanks - I wanted to check out for myself what Santorum and DeLay are referring to when they talk about the Constitutional authority.
it sounds kind of round about; what do you mean by which kinds of cases federal courts have jurisdiction for?
(and suddenly, I am wondering about the etymolgy of jurisdiction.)

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

Yes, you would think Tom DeLay might have a reason not to like courts, since he's likely to be the recipient of a summons to appear in front of one veeeerrrrrry soon.

Oh, and yes, we Brits do have a chuckle when the anti-choice folk pop their heads up, if only because we know truly black humour when we see it...

[beeeej.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I keep meaning to get around to answering this question, but it's very complex - there are entire four-credit courses taught about the nature, origin, and jurisdiction of federal courts and the authority Congress has (and doesn't have) over them.

Basically, beyond what the Constitution says specifically about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, it's silent on the lower federal courts other than to say Congress may create them. So Congress is also presumed to have final say over how those lower federal courts work and the scope of their jurisdiction. At any time, Congress could theoretically say, "Federal courts can no longer hear any action relating to works of fiction," and it would be a valid pronouncement; henceforth all such actions would have to be brought in state courts with appropriate jurisdiction over the parties involved.

It gets more complex, though, when Congress wants to limit jurisdiction over the types of things they're apparently suggesting. The Supreme Court, according to the Constitution (and according to itself, in Marbury v. Madison) has final say over any and all Constitutional issues, so for Congress to say "Federal courts can no longer hear any action relating to the question of whether a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building is constitutional" would be to raise the further question of whether it's constitutional for Congress to say such a thing. And someone with a legitimate grievance over a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building would then have to challenge the constitutionality of that jurisdictional limitation in order to challenge the display. A federal court could quite easily say Congress didn't have the right to limit its jurisdiction over a First Amendment issue, and strike down the law, which would start a whole new fight.

Now you see why it looks like it might be so much fun? :-{)} Conservatives almost certainly can't get a constitutional amendment passed declaring that public displays of the Ten Commandments are an exception to the prohibition against establishment of a state religion, so they'll try to prevent anybody else from raining on their religious parade by making it illegal for federal courts to rule on the issue. Only it's almost certainly unconstitutional for them to do so, meaning the very federal courts they're trying to rein in will be the ones knocking them down.

Which may be exactly what they want, for all I know - more fodder for their fire.