One newspaper columnist calls it "the most hopeful political development of our lifetime." What on earth is he talking about? The possible impeachment of federal judges, that's what!
Washington Times columnist Paul Craig Roberts reports, joyfully, that House Majority Whip Tom DeLay has "announced that the House will be drawing up articles of impeachment against those judges who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution by running roughshod over the separation of powers and usurping the legislative function. Nothing less is at stake than self-rule, the bedrock of the Constitution itself," declares Roberts, and he's certainly right about that. If judges can overturn any legislation they please and reinterpret the Constitution at will, without fear of reprisal, then the franchise that our forefathers fought for becomes meaningless.
Roberts rejects the popular misconception that judges can be impeached only for specific criminal offenses. "There is no clearer, sounder, and firmer grounds for impeachment of judges than the violation of the constitutional oath," he asserts. Usurpation of the prerogative of another branch of government is the ultimate violation.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior." What is "good behavior"? That's for Congress to decide. Surely a judge is not demonstrating "good behavior," however, when he substitutes his personal opinion or a partisan agenda for the unambiguous meaning of our Founding Fathers as expressed in the Constitution, or when he denies or perverts the clear intent of the legislators who represent us.
Article III also empowers Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress can deny federal judges the power to impose taxes; this is strictly a legislative function. Congress can prohibit the federal courts from issuing injunctions that overrule the will of the people as expressed in referenda. Congress can bar the courts from creating "rights" out of thin air -- such as abortion "rights," and the newly discovered "rights" of same-sex marriage and assisted suicide.
The sanctimonious opposition to the prospect of impeachment has already begun. "Representative DeLay has struck raw nerves among liberals and the political left, which have long relied on judicial coercion to implement policies that could not be won through democratic means," Roberts observes. "Accustomed to ruling from the bench, elitist liberals are hysterical that power might be returned to the people, whom they distrust and despise. . . . Despite the solid constitutional ground on which Mr. DeLay stands, the liberal legal establishment is pretending that his intention to impeach judges who disrespect the separation of powers is the wildest and most irresponsible and dangerous thing they have ever heard."
Liberals, sad to say, won't be the only impeachment opponents. "Mr. DeLay's problem, and our problem as a nation," Roberts laments, "is that very few liberal, conservative, or libertarian thinkers value self-rule. They see democracy as the problem, not the solution. Liberals dislike the people's moral and religious principles, conservatives fear the people will vote away their property, and libertarians live in dread of the 'tyranny of the majority.' As a consequence," Roberts concludes, "we suffer the tyranny of the minority and are ruled by judges (and bureaucrats)."
