Time: Wed Mar 19 12:19:58 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14901; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:35:20 -0700 (MST) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15324; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:34:54 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:02:53 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable -- March 1997 Phyllis Schlafly Report (fwd) <snip> > http://eagleforum.org/psr/1997/mar97/psrmar97.html > > The Phyllis Schlafly Report > > -- Vol. 30, No. 8 * Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002 * March 1997 -- > > It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable > > Senator Orrin Hatch has taken exception to the New York > Times' criticism of his record as chairman of the > Senate Judiciary Committee, and he wrote a letter to > the editor to object. (2-19-97) The Times had > complained that Republican Senators have "politicized" > the judicial confirmation process by not confirming > enough of Clinton's judicial nominees. > > Not so, says Hatch, and he has the numbers to prove it. > He proudly asserts that the Senate has confirmed 202 of > Clinton's judges. That's more than President Bush's > (194), more than President Reagan's (164), and more > than President Nixon's (191) during each of their first > terms. Hatch added, "None of these judges would have > been confirmed without Republican cooperation." > > It is not only shocking that Republican Senators have > cooperated in confirming Clinton's 202 federal judges, > but it is just as shocking that Orrin Hatch is bragging > about it. In allowing themselves to be coopted by Bill > Clinton, Republican Senators have failed to accept > their constitutional "advice and consent" > responsibilities. > > The federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy > Carter are the biggest threat to constitutional self > government today. These activist judges have been > writing liberal opinions into the law, usurping > legislative functions, and depriving Americans of our > rights of self-government. > > Last November 15, Senator Hatch made a speech to the > Federalist Society in which he said, "Those nominees > who are or will be judicial activists should not be > nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, > and I personally will do my best to see to it that they > are not." Sounds good, doesn't it? > > But Senator Hatch and Republican leader Bob Dole > enthusiastically confirmed Clinton's most activist > Supreme Court nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her Supreme > Court opinion forcing Virginia Military Institute to > admit women is typical feminist judicial extremism and > was wholly predictable at the time of her appointment. > Where were Orrin Hatch and Republican Senators then? > They didn't even ask Ginsburg any questions about her > own published writings in support of radical feminist > goals to fundamentally change our Constitution. (See > the Phyllis Schlafly Report, July 1993) > ______________________________________________ > > Use the Impeachment Power! > Instead of cooperating in confirming Clinton's judges, > Republicans should be talking about impeaching the > Clinton and Carter judges who have been usurping > legislative and executive functions. Article III states > that "The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior > Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior," > and it is not "good behavior" to hand down rulings > based on personal social views rather than the > Constitution's words. > > David Barton of the Texas-based organization called > WallBuilders has just published a handbook called > Impeachment, in which he lays out the constitutional > foundations for using impeachment to curb our present > overactive judiciary. (WallBuilders, P.O. Box 397, > Aledo, TX 76008, 817-441-6044) > > The Constitution contains six clauses about > impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole > power of impeachment (the presentation of formal > charges). The Senate has the sole power to try > impeachments, and conviction requires a two-thirds > vote. Punishment can be removal from office or removal > plus a bar against future office-holding. > > Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and Congress > cannot impose civil or criminal penalties. Contrary to > current popular misconceptions, the offense for which a > judge may be impeached does not have to be a crime or > have any statutory or criminal basis. Barton quotes > numerous Founders to prove that they viewed impeachment > as a remedy for a broad range of non-statutory offenses > such as (in George Mason's words) "attempts to subvert > the Constitution," or (in Alexander Hamilton's words) > "violation of some public trust." > > Even that great advocate of judicial power, Chief > Justice John Marshall, wrote during impeachment > proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase for his > arbitrary use of judicial power that "a Judge giving a > legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the > legislature is liable to impeachment." Carter and > Clinton judges are constantly making rulings contrary > to what the legislature intended. > > The impeachment cases brought during our country's > first half-century involved non-statutory offenses, > such as judicial high-handedness. It's easy to think of > some current judges who could be targets for > impeachment on that charge. > > When President Gerald Ford was a Congressman, he > proposed the impeachment of one of the most liberal of > all Supreme Court Justices, William O. Douglas. Ford, > who was a moderate in every sense of the word, > explained Congress's tremendous and far-reaching power > of impeachment: "An impeachable offense is whatever a > majority of the House of Representatives considers it > to be at a given moment in history; conviction results > from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the > other body [the Senate] considers to be sufficiently > serious to require removal of the accused from office." > > When we open the topic of impeachment, we hear a lot of > impassioned talk about preserving the "independence" of > the judiciary. That's really a cover to shield federal > judges from accountability. The Founders did not intend > life tenure for federal judges to saddle us with a > judicial oligarchy. > > In our intricate constitutional system of interlacing > checks and balances, the legislative and executive > branches are held accountable by frequent elections. > Judges should be held accountable by the Senate's > "advice and consent" power to withhold confirmation, > and by the House's power to impeach judges for lack of > "good behavior." > > Stop Federalizing Local Crimes > Americans were shocked when Congressional > investigations in 1995 unfolded the truth about the > fatal tragedies at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. > In the former, an innocent woman and child were killed > in cold blood by an FBI sharpshooter, and in the > latter, 80 American men, women and children were > incinerated by the Federal Government in a full-scale > military attack. Both events involved outrageous abuses > of power by federal law enforcement agencies, followed > by lies, coverups, and destruction of evidence. > > The Senators on the Terrorism, Technology and > Government Information Subcommittee could not conceal > their amazement at how busybody federal agents had > manufactured the Ruby Ridge case out of virtually > nothing into a monstrosity that involved millions of > dollars, an 18-month siege of a little cabin on a > remote Idaho mountain, a federal assault force of 400 > agents armed with sub-machine guns, and the killing of > innocent people. > > These tragedies have changed the way Americans view > federal law enforcement agencies and jeopardized public > confidence in government itself. It's no wonder that > people distrust government today and that ordinary > Americans have concluded that the government is our > enemy, not our friend. > > What concerns us here is not merely the actions of > certain federal employees, but the involvement of the > Federal Government in the first place. > > Ruby Ridge and Waco were, constitutionally speaking, > none of the Federal Government's business. Neither > incident involved interstate activity or posed a threat > to the Federal Government. > > The underlying problem is that so many criminal laws > and laws regulating firearms have been federalized. > Until very recent years, everything involved at Ruby > Ridge and Waco would have been handled under state and > local laws (if, indeed, there were anything to handle > at all, since the Ruby Ridge sequence of events started > only when a BATF agent entrapped Randy Weaver into > committing a minor firearms violation). > > Former Attorney General Edwin Meese believes that these > outrages require remedies that are much more > fundamental than the mere suspension and forced > retirement of several agents. > > Federalizing crime contradicts constitutional > principles, according to Edwin Meese. The U.S. > Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three > crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high > seas and offenses against the law of nations. The > Constitution left responsibility for public safety > solely in the domain of the states. > > Congress, however, has created more than 3,000 federal > crimes, many of them redundant with state laws. Hardly > any crime, no matter how local, is now beyond the > jurisdiction of federal criminal authorities. > > Meese accurately says that federalizing crime increases > "the potential for an oppressive and burdensome federal > police state." > > Ruby Ridge and Waco proved that proposition when the > federal agents who testified before the Senate > investigating committee expressed no apology for their > actions. They repeatedly said that they would take the > same course of action if they had it to do all over > again. Attorney General Janet Reno stoutly maintained > that the Justice Department made no mistakes during the > Waco debacle. > > One of the worst effects of federalizing crime is the > added jurisdiction and power this gives to the federal > courts. Activist federal judges have greatly expanded > the rights of criminal defendants, have further > burdened law-enforcement agencies, and have virtually > taken over the operation of 80 percent of all state > prison systems. Arrogant federal judges have overturned > or altered jury findings and verdicts, contrary to the > specific powers given to juries, which are enumerated > in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. > Constitution. > > Another part of the federalizing of crime is the > criminalization of environmental regulations. Many of > these federal environmental crimes are local in nature, > and they are often so vague that some property owners > violate the law without realizing it. > > Crime often tops the list when voters are asked what > they are concerned about, and Republicans like to pose > as law-and-order spokesmen. That's why many > politicians, seeking to portray themselves as tough on > crime, have passed so many laws creating new federal > crimes and stiffer penalties. They should know that > these laws are not in harmony with our Constitution and > that crime is most effectively fought at the local > level, anyway. > > Republicans also do a lot of talking about their >> devotion to the Tenth Amendment. If they are sincere, > Congress should wipe off the books all the federal > crimes that contravene the principles of the Tenth > Amendment or that are redundant with state crimes. It's > time for Members of Congress to admit that > law-and-order is a state and local function and address > themselves to the real problems that are properly > Congress's responsibility. > > ____________________________________________ > > The Legal Services Corporation Should Be Abolished > > The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is the acid test > to demonstrate whether or not the Republican Congress > really intends to reform and reduce Big Government and > restrain the Imperial Judiciary. If the Republicans > merely play around with smoke and mirrors, pretending > to correct abuses, but leave the money faucet turned > on, they will have betrayed their mandate from the 1994 > and 1996 elections and left their enemies with a gun > pointed at their head. > > When most people think of legal aid services, they > think of helping victims who can't afford a lawyer, > especially women and children. LSC is actually a giant > national network of tax-funded lawyers who file > lawsuits before liberal judges in order to implement a > radical social and political agenda. LSC lawyers > provide activist federal judges with legal jargon to > rationalize usurping legislative and executive > functions. > > LSC lawyers work for such causes as preventing the > eviction of drug dealers from public housing, shielding > violent offenders' criminal records from the public, > getting perks for prison inmates, maintaining taxpayer > benefits for illegal aliens, and releasing mental > patients (who often then join the ranks of the > homeless). > > When LSC lawyers talk about conducting "research" and > facilitating "training," they are using euphemisms for > political organizing and lobbying for pro-gay-rights, > pro-abortion, pro-welfare-entitlement, pro-criminal, > pro-drug, and pro-illegal-alien causes. > > Interference in Elections. The most recent LSC outrage > is the attempt to overturn an election that LSC lawyers > didn't like. An LSC grantee, Texas Rural Legal Aid > (TRLA), which gets 80 percent of its funding from the > U.S. taxpayers, is trying to overturn the narrow > elections of a Republican County Commissioner and a > Republican Sheriff by suing to get a federal court to > void the absentee ballots of 800 U.S. active duty > military personnel and their families. TRLA's > outlandish argument is that the military absentees > diluted the votes of Hispanic residents. > > U.S. District Judge George J. Korbel authorized > discovery, and so TRLA sent a 24-page, 54-question > deposition to all Val Verde County, Texas voters who > cast absentee ballots in the November 1996 election. > This extremely nosy questionnaire demands very personal > information in extraordinary detail. The questionnaire > demands lengthy written answers to questions about each > voter's credit cards, bank accounts, stock brokerage > accounts, insurance, the names of every organization to > which the voter belongs, all schools and colleges > attended by the voter's children and whether tuition > was paid or not, and where the voter's spouse sleeps at > night. > > On January 8, LSC's Washington office sent a letter to > TRLA stating that this lawsuit "constitutes a > substantial violation of the grant agreement." But that > letter didn't have any impact. TRLA further defied > Congress by asking for attorney's fees, despite a clear > prohibition on that practice. > > LSC Has Spent $5 Billion since 1974. If the leftwing > lawyers had merely torched the money, that wouldn't > have been nearly as destructive as spending the money > the way they did. LSC lawyers spent the money to > litigate and lobby to increase entitlements (for > welfare, aliens, criminals, etc.) that are the chief > cause of federal deficits. Howard Phillips, who has > been monitoring LSC since 1970 when President Nixon > appointed him to a position that included that > responsibility, estimates that LSC activism has added > $2 trillion to the national debt. > > LSC's litigation deserves a large share of the blame > for our out-of-control, failed welfare system. LSC > initiated the case, King v. Smith, in which the Supreme > Court ruled in 1968 that the behavior of welfare > mothers, including cohabiting with wage-earning males, > could not be considered when determining eligibility > for benefits. In Shapiro v. Thompson in 1969, LSC got > the Supreme Court to ban the one-year residency > requirement for welfare eligibility. In 1970, in > Goldberg v. Kelly, LSC persuaded the Supreme Court to > require a hearing process before benefits can be cut > off for any reason. As a result, hardly anyone is ever > cut off. > > The theory behind these cases, invented by LSC > tax-funded lawyers, is that welfare recipients have a > property right in their benefits, just like the rest of > us have a property right in our houses or automobiles. > This off-the-wall rationale has become the cornerstone > of the welfare rights movement, which has changed our > laws and picked the pockets of taxpayers. > > Another favorite LSC constituency is incarcerated > convicted felons. LSC's class action suit against the > North Carolina prison system resulted in a requirement > that each of 13 prisons provide softball and basketball > equipment for two teams, a piano, a set of drums, three > guitars, and five frisbees. Another LSC victory was to > establish Chicago prisoners' rights to cable television > and expensive weight rooms. > > Other exotic LSC lawsuits included representing > transsexuals in an effort to overturn Georgia's > prohibition on Medicaid reimbursement for sex change > operations, forcing public housing officials to rent > apartments to unemancipated minors, and trying to > define opium and alcohol addiction as a disability > under the Americans with Disabilities Act. > > How LSC Nullifies "Reforms." Congress had planned to > terminate LSC in 1995, but because of bleeding-heart > whining about the "poor," Congress relented and > extended LSC's life with some reasonable restrictions > to try to de-politicize it. Congress banned the filing > of class-action lawsuits and prohibited LSC grantees > from pursuing politically controversial cases, even > with non-LSC funds. The handful of Republican > "moderates" plus the Democrats who engineered this > life-support system for LSC assured us that LSC would > clean up its act and devote itself to its real mission > of helping the poor. > > LSC responded by committing a raft of new offenses, > such as the interference in the Texas election > (described above) and filing lawsuits to get the > federal courts to overturn the new Congressional > regulations. > > For the last 20 years, LSC grantees have evaded the > laws against political advocacy by claiming that they > were pursuing political cases with "non-LSC" money. > This loophole is big enough to drive thousands of > lawsuits through because money is fungible and nobody > can identify what money is being spent for which suit. > Most LSC money comes from the federal taxpayers, who >> pay for LSC attorneys' salaries and overhead. Since > Congress cannot force grantees to open their case > files, there is no way to prove allocation of the > funds. > > Congress certainly should have the right to appropriate >> taxpayers' money only to those who agree not to engage > in class-action suits or political advocacy, and that > was one of the reforms passed in the previous Congress. > > LSC lawyers have counterattacked through the courts. An > LSC grantee in New York, Legal Services for the > Elderly, persuaded a New York state judge to rule on > December 26, 1996 that it is unconstitutional for > Congress to prohibit LSC grantees from engaging in > class-action lawsuits or pursuing political litigation > with non-LSC funds. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice > Beverly Cohen ruled that Congress has no right to tell > LSC grantees what kind of cases they can pursue with > non-LSC money. Judge Cohen said that this restriction > is just a "thinly disguised attack on basic freedoms," > i.e., the "basic freedom" of tax-funded LSC lawyers to > engage in class-action or political litigation. > > This decision inspired other LSC groups to challenge > the new Congressional restrictions. Five LSC-funded > groups filed suit in federal district court in Hawaii, > and on February 19, 1997, Federal Judge Alan Kay struck > down the new Congressional restrictions on the way LSC > lawyers spend nonfederal funds. A federal judge in > Rhode Island and a Ohio state judge have also granted > temporary relief to legal aid groups and allowed them > to continue work on their class action suits. > > LSC Can't Be Reformed. LSC lawyers have no intention of > abiding by any restrictions, and when they bring their > cases before Carter-appointed or Clinton-appointed > judges, they have a good chance of outmaneuvering any > restrictions Congress tries to impose. LSC lawyers have > constructed for themselves such a Byzantine, > self-perpetuating infrastructure and grant-making > mechanism that they are accountable to no one: not to > Congress, or to the Administration, or to the people > they serve, or to the taxpayers who foot the bills. > Hillary Rodham Clinton used to be LSC's chairman of the > board, and LSC has continued to be peopled with > leftwing attorneys who share her class-warfare ideology > and socialist goals. > > Radical leftwing activism is part and parcel of the > Legal Services Corporation. It is a fraud on the public > to pretend it can be reformed. LSC functions as a pot > of gold for leftwing lawyers to litigate and lobby for > radical causes. This scandal-ridden agency must be > completely abolished. The 1996 Republican Party > Platform called for the elimination of the Legal > Services Corporation. It's time to fulfill that pledge > before LSC engages in any more mischief. <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail