"The Hammer" Hits The Judicial Nail On The Head

A week and change ago I expressed the hope that the astonishing (even for them) imperial arrogance of the state and federal courts in, respectively, ordering Terri Schiavo's death and defying the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, requiring de novo review of the case, might finally have pushed judicial power-grabbing too far, triggering a long-overdue backlash that may finally restore the balance of power among the three branches of our government.

I still think it's a largely forelorn hope. But if so, it won't be for lack of trying on Tom DeLay's part.

Perhaps dissatisfied and frustrated by the performance of the federal court system in relation to the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says he'll ask a House panel to look into it.

The Texas Republican, who is known on Capitol Hill as "The Hammer" for his unrelenting style, is already a Democratic target of ire for his past criticism of federal courts, the Washington Post reports.

That's one reason. Not that Donks need any reasons, you understand; there's no rationality to their mindless hatreds. Mostly, though, they're just perpetually pissed that he's whipped their asses at every turn, including undoing Texas' former gerrymander that had one of the most Republican states in the country with a nearly 60%-40% Democrat majority in its House delegation. That's why ol' Ronnie Earle (the man who tried to smear Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate career in the starting gates by frivilously indicting her) is threatening to mete out similar treatment in order to drive DeLay out of the House GOP leadership.

You'd think they'd learn. DeLay is fearless and beyond intimidation - a set of traits as rare as hen's lips in the Republican Party. And it comes in handy, as with comments like this:

The paper said his office did not reveal specifics, but did say DeLay would ask the House Judiciary Committee to conduct a "broad review of the courts' handling of" the case. Earlier this week, DeLay accused state and federal courts of their "failure" to save Terri Schiavo's life...

DeLay's statement regarding his intention to seek a full accounting of the courts' behavior reflected some of this frustration. According to the Post, DeLay said "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." And later, in a television interview, he said he intends to "look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the President."

In an interview with Fox News, DeLay said lawmakers "need to look at this case."

"We need to look at the failure of the judiciary in Florida. We need to look at the failure of the judiciary on the federal level," he added.

The italicized portion triggered the following, typically smear-happy Democrat overreactions:

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress," wrote Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, the Post reported. "Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

Added Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts: "At a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone."

Got that? Reining in an imperial Judiciary that is running roughshod over "our fundamental democracy" by taking away Americans' "fundamental right" to self-government, using mechanisms the Constitution provides, is now a "threat to democracy."

Kennedy's quip is best left to a substance abuse counselor or a shrink to analyze.

Jeb Babbin swept away this nonsense at the American Spectator today:

DeLay wasn't calling for peasants with pitchforks to storm the court houses. He said aloud what a great many Americans were thinking. Americans no longer trust the courts to dispense justice and protect freedoms. The judiciary has become just another branch of government competing for power against Congress and the White House. And winning, because neither Congress nor successive presidents have taken up the challenge.

And now, thanks in no small measure to "the Hammer," they just might.

Do you want to say "Good hunting!" or shall I?

UPDATE/BUMP TO 4/5: Goes to show how even I can miss the obvious when blogging "'round midnight." Rush Limbaugh, broadcasting smack in the middle of the workday today, picked up my fumble:

I think, folks, that it is time to draw a line in the sand on this. First, the facts. Just who is it who's been attacking the judiciary and judges and judicial nominees day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year? It's the left! It's the left and their agents in the US Senate that has sought to destroy, not just the reputations but the careers of a number of good people, good Americans, judicial nominees.

They haven't seen fit just to oppose them. They have sought to destroy them, maligned their character, lied about their "judicial temperament." Of course, this escapes the notice of the New York Times. All these attacks on the judiciary and judges, judicial nominees, day after day, month after month, year after year, the Times doesn't notice. The US Supreme Court was, continues to be attacked for its decision in Bush v. Gore back in 2000 by the left, and I'm going to tell you something, folks. I'll be damned honest with you. I think one of the reasons, one of the many reasons the US Supreme Court is ruling as it is on such things as campaign finance reform and various other issues is because they're sensitive to the criticism they got after Bush v. Gore in 2000 when it was said they decided the presidency. The left had a conniption. You remember it wasn't that long ago they were just out attacking the Supreme Court like nobody has before. So upset were liberal academics and congressional Democrats with that decision, that they decided to use the Senate's filibuster rule against judicial nominees and that itself is an abuse of the Constitution the likes of which we've never seen, and to this day, to this day the New York Times and liberal academics and Senate Democrats defend that practice. Is this not an assault on the judiciary? Is this not an attempt by a small group of radicals to smear judges and destroy them, judges they don't agree with? Does this not create an atmosphere of hate and anger against it is judiciary among some of these wacko kooks on the left?

Somehow this always manages to be missed by our great scholars and editorialists at the New York Times. Have you listened to what Ted Kennedy said about Robert Bork, who at the time was an appellate court judge, who had been confirmed by the very Senate that sought to destroy him? Does this not create an atmosphere of hate and anger? How about the attacks from Harry Reid on Clarence Thomas, a sitting Supreme Court justice, said he was stupid, said his opinions didn't make any sense; you couldn't read them. Joe Biden, what he has said about Antonin Scalia, another sitting Supreme Court justice? Have you heard what Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patrick "Leaky" Leahy have said about numerous sitting judges who have been nominated to the federal appellate bench by President Bush, judges who have already been confirmed by the Senate? Have you heard what they have said about these men and women - and what about People for the American Way and these other left-wing groups who brag to the media about their war room and how they've compiled all kinds of personal information against these likely Bush nominees to the Supreme Court? None of this, none of this seems to offend the New York Times and none of this even appears in the New York Times except when it's time to praise it, and somehow none of this is responsible for the kind of threats, or worse, the Times seeks to attribute to conservative critics of the judiciary.

Liberalism is like any large metropolitan central business district - a maze of one-way streets.

No wonder Dems can't win outside the big cities anymore.