For the record; why 'Judicial Tyrrany' is a BOGUS phrase...

I don't know if this is as obvious to everybody else as it is to me; most of the catch-phrases you hear coming from those clamoring for a theocratic dictatorship in this country....well, they love to use phrases like 'judicial tyrrany' to justify their will to power.

Here's why that particular phrase is BOGUS, imho:

tyr·an·ny (tr-n) n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.


Note the 'single ruler' thing. There were how many different judges ruling on the Schiavo case and it's appeals? It's kind of a major flaw in the logic of the phrase 'judicial tyrrany'. The bench is an institution, with many judges. It's a system of appeals, with many reviews.

Checks and balances work this way...if Congress and the President agree to do something extordinarily stupid and extra-constitutional (like they did this week), the courts have the authority to reign them in, to stop them. It's kind of a civics 101 idea, which those who aren't irretrievably ignorant could glean by reading about a case called Marbury vs. Madison:

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/judicial/bkgrnd.htm

For the prodly anti-intellectual Freepers amongst the readers of my little screed this morning, I think maybe you should stop listening to right-wing talk radio for a moment, and start re-reading the Constitution of the United States.

I'd suggest you begin with Article III, Section II:

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/constit_confed/constitution/document/document.htm#3

If you don't like having an independant judiciary, feel free to move out of the country; I hear there's a need for a few good men in Iraq.

Our country would be a whole lot better off without you. Congress has NO STANDING to interfere with the process of Judicial Review. Neither does that moron in the White House.

Just my $0.02.