Apr. 14, 2005 - 20:27 MDT

BECAUSE I SAY SO

I don't always agree with people I respect, come to think of it, that is not a requirement for respecting any people. But the consistency of their thoughts and ethics are unwavering I think. For example Cokie and Steven V. Roberts. They have a column in this morning's Rocky Mountain News that says a lot in a coulumn's width. In full:

Radical right assailing foundations of democracy

"The radical right is trying to carbomb the cornerstone of the American political system, an independent judiciary. It's time for genuine conservatives to step forward and oppose them."

"Threats against judicial integrity reached new levels of vitriol after a series of judges rebuffed congressional efforts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the courts had "RUN AMUCK" and vowed, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, argued that the only proper role for the courts was to be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives." Some critics have gone beyond intimidating rhetoric to threaten to impeach judges who make decisions they don't like."

"A few conservatives have offered pallid rebukes of DeLay & Co. Sen. bill Frist, the Republican leader, said, "I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today." And President Bush added, "I believe in proper checks and balances." But that's not good enough. The stakes are too high."

"If conservatives stand for anything -- if they really mean what they say -- they should be vigorously defending the central elements of the American system, separation of powers and checks and balances. An independent judiciary is a critical guardian of our most precious liberties. Tampering with that independence is in no sense conservative, it represents a frightening break with tradition."

"The problem is that the judicial warriors don't really understand the American system. Cornyn's comment, that judges should merely enforce "political decisions made by elected officials," badly misses the point."

"Yes, judges should generally defer to elected officials in matters of public policy. But when it comes to basic rights and liberties, judges must sometimes oppose "political decisions," even wildly popular ones. Sometimes they have to defend the rights of the most obnoxious and outrageous folks around. That's why federal judges are appointed for life, so that they can be insulated from the political passions of the moment and stand up for immutable principals."

"That is precisely what Judge Stanlely Birch Jr. did in the Schiavo case. An orthodox conservative appointed by the first President Bush, he had the courage -- and the independence -- to defy both the president and the Congress and tell the truth: that their effort to dictate an outcome to the courts was "demonstrably at odds" with the constitution "and violates the separation of powers principle." Judge Birch is a hero. So is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who opposes attempts by fellow Republicans to change the Senate rules and bar the use of the filibuster to halt judicial nominations."

"Remember" he noted, "if we don't protect the rights of the minority," they day will come when a "liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate" could do "great damage" to conservative goals."

"Exactly. More conservatives should be joining Birch and McCain in potesting the war on the judiciary and protecting minority rights. Freedom might be "on the march," as President Bush likes to boast, in Baghdad and Beirut. BUT IT'S IN DANGER IN WASHINGTON."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For me to say much more would probably detract from what already has been said. A judiciary at the beck and call of Congress is anathema to me. I think this is definitely time for our judiciary to refuse to obey Congress and Administration especially when their attitude is do it BECAUSE I SAY SO . . . . . . . . .

Blog