After spending far too much time watching Sunday's debate on the Terri Schiavo bill, I was left with two questions.
First, what business does an exterminator from Sugar Land, Texas, have telling the nation's judges how to do their job? Second, why are De Lay and the rest of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill turning Congress into a de facto federal court of appeals?
The Terri Schiavo bill wasn't just a shameless exploitation of a family tragedy. It's also the latest example of Congress sticking its nose in the business of the judiciary.
The bill sets a terrible precedent and opens the door to other applications of DeLay's Rules of Procedure.
A terminal cancer patient in Oregon wants to die in dignity? Pass a law giving a 14th cousin standing to bump the case into federal court. A California court finds a celebrity murder defendant not guilty? Pass a High Profile Victim's Right to Closure Act and let the relatives relitigate the issue.
The Schiavo bill epitomizes the Right's lack of intellectual consistency. Its supporters have engaged in the very conduct they've deplored for years.
Last month, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. One of the arguments in favor of it was that it would stop trial lawyers from "shopping" for favorable jurisdictions.
But that's exactly what the Schiavo bill does. Supporters didn't like the rulings handed down by 19 Florida judges who allowed Ms. Schiavo's feeding tubes to be disconnected; and they didn't like the federal courts' conclusion that the matter didn't raise a federal question.
The Founders are spinning in their graves. For good reason, they put in safeguards against the this sort of legislative tinkering, making both bills of attainder and ex post facto laws unconstitutional. The Schiavo bill--which applies to a single case--violates the spirit of both provisions.
What's unusual about the Schiavo bill is that Congressional Republicans have expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts. This bucks the overall trend of cutting back their jurisdiction.
Some on the Right are furious over federal courts decisions on religious displays, the Ten Commandments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Their "solution"? Eliminate federal jurisdiction over such cases.
They argue that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress final say over what cases federal courts can hear. As they read it, they can abolish federal jurisdiction altogether if they feel like it. (When I was in law school, this very subject came up over beers on a Saturday night. At least we could plead intoxication as a defense.)
While the court-stripping bills haven't passed--yet, Congress already gotten into the business of micromanaging the work of federal judges.
Two years ago, it passed the Feeney Amendment, one of several odious provisions tacked onto the Mom-and-apple-pie Amber Alert law (don't even get me started on the RAVE Act, another provision that was added). That amendment imposes strict limitations on federal judges who want to impose a less severe sentence than those provided for in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
This trend is only going to get worse. If it continues, we'll someday see debate--that is, assuming DeLay & Company allow it--on the GOP pièce de resistance, the Comprehensive Reform of the Judiciary Act.
The CRJA will pension off all federal judges and replace them with industrial robots. The robots--built by a subsidiary of Halliburton, of course--will be programmed daily with Republican talking points, thus making it possible to resolve the many inconsistencies in GOP ideology. And appellate-level robots will be programmed only to affirm.
Republicans will tout the law as a boon for all Americans. It will save taxpayers millions in salaries, make judicial confirmation hearings a thing of the past, and keep high-falutin', pointy-headed judges from interfering with the people's business.
And Rush will tell his followers that anyone who opposes that kind of common-sense reform is simply un-American.