Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin, in a recent article titled "Robust Congressional Oversight Will Improve Federal Courts," wrote that the "House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether Congress needs to create an Office of Inspector General for the Federal Judiciary. Each major department in the federal government has its own inspector general, who serves as an independent, in-house watchdog" and that such an agency "could help restore some of the public's confidence in the federal judiciary." The House Judiciary Committee should be commended for giving considering to such an excellent idea.
Back in 1820 Thomas Jefferson gave a warning about the dangers of an unaccountable judiciary when he wrote: "Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to elective control."
Jefferson's perspective doesn't appear to be shared by today's generation of liberals and progressives. Ever since the notorious outcome of the Terri Schiavo case, in which a handicapped Florida women suffered a brutal death due to starvation and dehydration at the hands of the Florida court system, there have been attempts made by liberal politicians, pundits, lawyers, and judges to squelch the dissent of those who were outraged by the injustice of the court's action. They claim that comments critical of judges undermine "judicial independence" which is something essential to the maintenance of credibility of state and federal courts.
The idea of judicial independence is to uphold the integrity of the adjudication process by shielding the process from outside influences that seek to achieve specific outcomes in an unfair manner, such as by offering a bribe or secretly contacting a judge in order to request that the judge make a specific ruling. The purpose of judicial independence was never intended to shield judges from scrutiny, criticism, or discipline when they act in such a way as to show evidence of a partisan involvement favoring specific outcomes in the cases that they adjudicate.
In a May 9, 2005 article titled "Awards to Schiavo Judge Add Insult to Injury" published by the Empire Journal, it was noted that Judge "Greer, by his own admission, ignored numerous affidavits from neurologists, physicians and pathologists that disputed the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. In total, more than 40 affidavits have been filed in the guardianship case that refuted PVS as Terri's condition, a judgment made solely by Greer." The same article noted: "It is a well known fact that the errors which occur in the lower courts are routinely accepted and rubber stamped by the higher courts which will seldom overturn a lower court action and seldom rule against their fellow jurists, instead basing their decision on the improperly determined lower court decision."
Although, some may disagree with opinions expressed in the Empire Journal article, it's quite clear that in the Terri Schiavo case, that no higher court provided any relief from Judge Greer's death sentence despite reasonable doubt pertaining to her condition as expressed by dozens of dissenting affidavits. If it's true that no higher court, either at a state or federal level, seemed to take allegations seriously that Terri Schiavo's civil rights were not protected in the legal process leading up to her death, that alone should be sufficient to show that the U.S. federal judiciary, as it presently exists, lacks the resolve to adequately police, investigate, and hold accountable those judges who fail to uphold statutes and procedures mandated by law. Accordingly, an Inspector General's Office for the judiciary, as envisioned by Rep. Sensenbrenner's article, may help America to overcome the scourge of an arrogant and imperial judiciary.
Copyright by Andrew W. Pollock III
