Sensenbrenner wants court "watchdog"

Our own F. Jim Sensenbrenner is full of himself these days. His latest idea is to create an inspector general, whatever that is, for the federal court system.

He insists it is not an attempt to tell the courts what to do, even though that is exactly what many of his conservative colleagues want to do.

This sounds more like a warning shot over the bow of federal judges, just to get their attention, with the threat of something harsher to follow if they don't shape up. Sensenbrenner floated the idea in a speech at Stanford, but gave no details about how it would work, the NY Times reports:

To preserve the independence of the judiciary, Mr. Sensenbrenner said, Congress should not seek "to regulate judicial decision-making through such extreme measures as retroactively removing lifetime appointees through impeachment."

But he continued, "This does not mean that judges should not be punished in some capacity for behavior that does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct."

"The appropriate questions," he added, "are how do we punish and who does the punishing."

So he's talking about punishment, although it is not clear what the offense would be. Disregarding Congress or the President's wishes? Being independent?

The AP story for broadcast outlets suggests the inspector general would have fiscal oversight.

This is the version reported on many local TV stations across the country:

CAPITOL HILL -- A powerful committee chairman says he wants Congress to watch courts more closely and better use its power of the purse. House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner is proposing that Congress set up a new financial watchdog over courts. At the same time, he insists he wants courts to maintain their independence.

This comes as the Senate prepares for what could be a brutal debate over judicial nominations. Politicians on all sides are debating the role of the courts and how judges should be held accountable.

Sensenbrenner says he isn't focusing on politics -- but on whether courts are spending their money judiciously.

Right. It's probably just coincidental that he's floating this idea at a time when Republicans are searching for ways to rein in the judiciary and exert more influence over federal judges. No politics here. Just good government. Thanks, F. J.