Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 174 years ago, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall warned: ``The greatest scourge in angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary.''
Despite Marshall's warning, quite remarkably, nearly 200 years later the very independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our separation of powers, is still a matter of contention for some, particularly in this Congress.
For 2 years in a row now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has used his year-end report to highlight the deteriorating relationship between the judicial branch and the legislative branch, the result of a recent systematic congressional attack on the independence of the judiciary. Since I arrived in Congress, I have been quite surprised by the dreadful state of relations between our branches and the absence of the comity that historically existed between the two.
The Federal caseload continues to rise at a record pace, reaching new levels. Courthouse funding is woefully inadequate, failing to meet the needs of our Federal courts in order to carry out their mission and to make necessary improvements in priority areas such as court security. Judicial confirmations continue to be mired in political brinksmanship. Judicial compensation has not kept pace with inflation and congressional inaction on an annual basis has led to delays in important adjustments, despite the President's admonition for Congress to act.
The House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit, has initiated investigations of judges charged with judicial misconduct, matters that were previously left to circuit judicial councils, and the word "impeachment" has been used quite loosely and frequently as a threat.
A few weeks ago, these threats reached a fever pitch with talk, from the highest leadership levels of this body, of intentions to ``look at an unaccountable, arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the President'' and a warning that ``the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.''
The Congress has also renewed its appetite for legislation that would strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction on a piecemeal basis from areas in which some are not pleased with the results that have been reached from the courts, or in areas where some are worried about potential outcomes down the road.
We have considered one bill which would remove Federal court jurisdiction over issues concerning the free exercise or the establishment of religion or over marriage. Should any Federal judge take up any issue involving that, the free exercise or the establishment of religion, he is subject to impeachment under the bill.
We had another proposal to remove jurisdiction of the courts over the Ten Commandments, another over the Pledge of Allegiance, and yet another to remove jurisdiction over any issue affecting the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law. Again, the penalty for a judge who inquires or exercises jurisdiction is impeachment, removal from office.
Perhaps we should simply remove the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over the entire first amendment and be done with it.
After moving to strip jurisdiction, we recently moved to provide jurisdiction, where the Federal courts should not have it, in the Schiavo matter; and the only common denominator seems to be the desire to obtain the preferred result from the bench, regardless of the constitutionally enshrined principles of the separation of powers and of federalism itself.
Congress has not stopped here, but has pursued proposals to split appellate court jurisdiction and even considered legislation that would decide for the judiciary what they may look at or include in their judicial opinions.
Does anyone in Congress believe that we can undermine the courts without belittling the Congress itself?
Some Supreme Court rulings, such as the decision with regard to the sentencing guidelines, remind us that sometimes there will be judicial decisions that we believe are poorly reasoned and others we just do not like. However, efforts by the Congress to force the courts to look at our transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, would only serve to undermine the very institution in which we serve.
As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan congressional caucus dedicated to this goal. Our caucus consists of some 30 Members from both sides of the aisle, and I encourage my colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to restore the historic comity between our two branches.
One hundred and seventy-four years ago, Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Marshall warned of the great scourge of a dependent judiciary to be inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people. Let us not forget his wise admonition.