Andrea Yates was found not guilty of murdering her children.

It is a travesty of justice.

I am sickened beyond words.

She was tried on only three counts of murder, so I hope they go back and nail her on the other two. Hospitalization is insufficient -- and I would argue that prison doesn't constitute justice, either. If she does not merit an IV in the death chamber, no one does.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

When the FBI raided the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-Cold Cash In The Freezer), I argued that it was absurd for Congress to claim that it was exempt from search warrants issued according to the Fourth Amendment.

Well, a federal judge backed my position today.

An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.

In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

The attempt to apply the Speech and Debate Clause to this was patently absurd. The judge dismissed it out of hand. Futhermore, he also rejected the notion that the raid breached the separation of powers.

"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."

I particularly love this quote.

If there is any threat to the separation of powers here, it is not from the execution of a search warrant by one co-equal branch of government upon another, after the independent approval of the third separate, and co-equal branch. Rather, the principle of the separation of powers is threatened by the position that the Legislative Branch enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable power to invoke an absolute privilege, thus making it immune from the ordinary criminal process of a validly issued search warrant. This theory would allow Members of Congress to frustrate investigations into non-legislative criminal activities for which the Speech or Debate Clause clearly provides no protection from prosecution.

Read the whole opinion here.

(H/T Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Gay Patriot, GOPBloggers)

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 4 kb.

If the ACLU is the "voice of civil liberties" from teh Left, then the Right has two such groups -- the ACLJ and the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF is profiled today in the Washington Post.

A 29-foot war memorial shaped like a cross should be allowed to remain on public land. A teacher should be able to emphasize references to God in the Declaration of Independence. Protesters should be permitted to approach women near the doors of an abortion clinic.

These courtroom fights and dozens of others pending across the country belong to the portfolio of the ambitious Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium. It spends $20 million a year seeking to protect what it regards as the place of religion -- and especially Christianity -- in public life.

Considering itself the antithesis of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Scottsdale-based organization has used money and moxie to become the leading player in a movement to tug the nation to the right by challenging decades of legal precedent. By stepping into the nation's most impassioned debates about religion in the public sphere, the group aims to bring law and society into alignment with conservative Christianity.

There are those who argue that the group's Christian orientation puts it at odds with the First Amendment. That is nonsense. While the First Amendment clearly forbids establishing a religion as the national church, there is nothing in it which prohibits the people from enacting laws which reflect their views -- even if those views grow from their faith. And there is certainly no requirement that people of faith take a backseat to secularists. That is why the Alliance Defense Fund exists.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that is the argument put forward by Steven M. Warshawsky at American Thinker. He correctly argues that the majority in Hamdan ran roughshod over the clear statutory language of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which was an exercise of Congress power to set the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and lower courts pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.

Under the DTA, the only court that is authorized to hear appeals brought by captured terrorists is the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (commonly known as the “DC Circuit”), which had ruled in favor of the federal government. Nevertheless, the five liberal justices of the Supreme Court (Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy) concocted an explanation for why the DTA does not mean what it says, and then invalidated the military tribunals established by President Bush and the Department of Defense as part of the fight against international Islamic terrorism.

And therein lies the problem. In order to reach the decision on the merits of the case in Hamdan, the majority had to engage in what may be the most egregious case of legislating from the bench which has ever occurred in American history. In doing so, it far exceeded the reaching for unbridled power of which it accused President Bush. This raises questions as to the legitimacy of the decision, and the propriety of following it. Indeed, it once more raises tthe spectre of an imperial judiciary, an unaccountable body steping outside of its proper bounds to overrule the political branches of government in their proper constitutional spheres.

And yet, where lies the solution to this problem. The partisan divide in Washington is such that the obvious constitutional approach, impeachment of the offending quintet, is out of the question. Democrats are so eager to strike at the president for partisan advantage that they will support the warping of the proper constitutional order if they believe it will aid them in taking back Congress and the presidency. In addition, the Democrats would be loath to give President bush even one more opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court with a conservative nominee. So much for that option.

The alternative reaches back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Jackson is quoted as saying of the Chief Justice, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." So, too, muight the president and Congress choose to ignore a decision that is illegitmate at its root -- not because they dislike the decision, but because the Court's very act of deciding was contrary to the law and the Constitution, and therefore illegitimate and void.

The truth is that the Supreme Court’s actual authority is only as deep as the willingness of the other branches of government and the American people to “obey” its commands. At some point, we have to say, enough is enough. I think we have reached that point with Hamdan. In my opinion, the President and Congress should treat the Court’s decision respectfully but as advisory only, and abide only by those aspects of the decision that they agree are in the national interest.

To take such a step would be a momentous decision in American history. As Warshawsky points out, the Supreme Court has th closest thing to absolute power in American government because the other branches of government, and the American people as a whole, have chosen to accept its decisions as final and beyond reproach even when they appear to exceed the bounds of constitutionality. Perhaps this decision constitutes the tipping point away from that consensus of infalliblity.

The President, of course, may not act alone in this regard. Such a course of action would require the support and consent of the bulk of Congress. Perhaps teh best approach would be for Congress to grant the President the statutory powers neccessary to follow the procedures in place pre-Hamdan, and to definitively strip all but the DC Circuit of jurisdiction in such cases. Indeed, the statute must EXPLICITLY overrule Hamdan in no uncertain terms.

Such a move would be daring, given that the judiciary has never been rebuked in such a manner. And in light of the reflexive deferrence that the American people give the Supreme Court, the action would have to be done in a manner which was clear to the American people as respectful to the legitimate authority of the Court but also necessary to preserving the powers of the other co-equal branches.

For if such a course of action is not taken, the reality will be that the checks and balances put in place by the founders will have been upset byt the branch seen as least likely to become the source of tyranny which destroys our Constitutional system of government.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.