The coordinated campaign to intimidate the judiciary and consolidate
executive monarchical power continues. Bills have been introduced in both Senate and House to create a
lapdog "watchdog," who be appointed by John Roberts (lifetime appointment for John Roberts; he's a committed rightwinger, in case you didn't know) and would snoop amongst the affairs of federal judges and report any suspected "malfeasances," (as in the way the House Ethics committee works, you can bet) to the Chief Justice and to the Justice Department (that's a branch of the executive branch, in case you weren't aware, and that is headed by
King George W. Bush GOP-uberall-ist Karl Rove and his band of amoral dirty tricksters.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has correctly labeled the plan a "Soviet"-style proposal. MORE BELOW
From the
AP/LA Times:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Tuesday that a Republican proposal in Congress to set up a watchdog over the federal courts is a "really scary idea."
Ginsburg told a gathering of the American Bar Association that lawyers should stick up for judges when they are criticized by congressional leaders.
My sense now is that the judiciary is under assault in a way that I haven't seen before," she said.
As an example, she mentioned proposals by senior Republicans who want an inspector general to police judges' acceptance of free trips or their possible financial interests with groups that could appear before them.
"It sounds to me very much like the Soviet Union was .... That's a really scary idea," said Ginsburg, who was put on the court by President Clinton and is one of its liberal members.
...Sen. Charles Grassley, R[ubberstamp]-Iowa, said last week that the judiciary wasn't doing enough policing of itself. His plan would create an inspector general to oversee federal courts including the Supreme Court. The inspector general would be directed to report any judicial misconduct to the Justice Department.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has proposed a separate plan to cover lower federal courts only.
Ginsburg said her concerns were about the legislative branch setting up a so-called guardian for the judicial branch. She also said there have been discussions in Congress about limiting the scope of courts.
The
Federal Court Administrative Office (now there's a lonely voice) spoke out strongly against the GOP maneuver:
... creating an inspector general for the federal judiciary to investigate possible ethical violations by federal judges "would be a serious incursion into judicial independence" and was unnecessary, as the judicial branch was already subject to congressional oversight and had internal procedures for handling ethics problems. ... Both versions of the legislation would direct Chief Justice John Roberts to appoint an inspector general who would report to him and to Congress about activities of members of the judiciary.
This idea has been previously rejected:
... in 1996 the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States [official website] formally rejected the option,
Nonetheless,Rep. Sensenbrenner ... was "troubled to read recently in a Washington Post article that a number of federal judges have continued to violate applicable ethical rules and others have failed to make proper disclosures for travel to resorts on expense-paid trips."
If you read the Post article, most of the stuff is pretty penny-ante, and would seem to be easily dealt with. Most of it comes from a single conference in Montana. Yet, the imperious James Sensenbrenner is
righteously aroused:Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, "Integrity and accountability are the hallmarks of a public servant's trust with the public. [my god, did Sensenbrenner kiss his mother with those lips?] It's my hope an independent Inspector General for the Judicial Branch will help restore some of this trust with the public that has been damaged by the actions of some Federal judges who have carelessly ignored the ethical guidelines established. In addition, an IG will serve as a public watchdog to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure the Third Branch's taxpayer- funded resources are utilized in an appropriate manner, just as IGs do throughout the Executive Branch. [gag]
"Let me be clear [okay, that's a lie] - this independent Inspector General will not have any authority or juridiction over the substance of a judge's opinions. [please, we are so stupid as you might wish] Judicial independence of opinions is a sacred [sacred, mind you] foundation of our constitutional form of government of checks and balances and separation of powers that must not be tampered with....[okay, aren't you part of the Congress that has basically given up its reason for existence?] Given this poor record of performance in self-policing, I am proposing to create an [permanent Republican] independent Inspector General who will be responsible for reporting to both the Chief Justice and to Congress ...
Right. And those IG's have really worked in the executive branch, haven't they? name one case, please, of the many scandals and indictments that have plagued the Bush administration, that were uncovered by the IG's...and the Congress? self-policing? please.....
While several recent headline cases of conflict of interest (Alito/Vanguard, Scalia/Cheney) have involved the GOP/wingers, the House bill would not include the Supremes. Certainly a GOP appointee would focus on liberals and moderates (let's see, Ken Starr would be a good guy for this post, wouldn't he...?) and ignore totally even the most egregious violations by rightwingers (unless of course, they are indicted by a special prosecutor).
No thanks people, if I want more respect for the judiciary, I'm not turning to the likes of Karl "ethics when it suits" Rove, King George "I decide what's constitutional" Bush, Tom "me? advocating violence against judges?" DeLay, James "abortions=Holocaust" Dobson, Pat "judges worse than al-Qaeda" Robertson, Charles "Alito's Vanguard games are OK with me" Grassley, Bill "activist judges" Frist and their pals. These trolls have already done enough damage to the judiciary with their veiled threats and selective pseudomorality. While I am appalled that Scalia can refer to his unethical conduct in the Cheney case as his "proudest moment," this GOP bullshit isn't gonna change his conduct. Justice Ginsburg is right: this is one more step towards a totalitarian regime.