Saturday, March 26, 2005

Judicial tyranny my ass.

I was listening to NPR earlier this evening and some punkass mid-western Republican was whining that the Schiavo case has highlighted the abusive judicial tyranny. If I could have reached through the radio and throttled this douchebag, I would have. Listening to another simpering slimebag Republican moan and groan about the "judicial tyranny" nearly drove me to violence.

This gentleman, who's name I forget, was complaining that the federal court that took the Schiavo case after Congress gave it jurisdiction did not provide enough review. Really! He complained that the bill gave the court the power of de novo review, but that the court did not exercise that right. According to this pussbucket, the court should have abided by Congress' will, and it did not.

Well, I urge each and every one of you to go read the bill and tell me what it says. If you do, you will see that the bill gives the federal court jurisdiction to hear the Schiavo case and review it de novo. There are a lot of "shalls" in there, but none of them say, "The court SHALL provide injunctive relief requiring the hospice to feed Terry Schiavo." This, of course, is what the Republican Congressman was complaining about. The court did not provide the injunction Congress intended it to and, as a result, they've decided to complain about judicial tyranny.

That term has now been rendering virtually meaningless. As far as I can tell, whenever a conservative whines "judicial tyranny", it's shorthand for "I want results-oriented conservative activists sitting on all federal courts, and the judge in the case I'm complaining about is not a results-oriented conservative activist." Don't be fooled, right-wing conservatives have one and only one judicial philosophy: nominate judges who will create a theocracy.