Pope John Paul II, the vicar of Christ for the world’s 1 billion Catholics, died nearly two weeks ago, but you wouldn’t know it from watching television. The intense scrutiny on his declining health (rivaled only by the coverage of Terri Schiavo’s “persistent vegetative state” for sheer ghoulishness) has now been replaced by a deluge of hagiographic retrospectives, reminiscences and entire newscasts devoted to the pontiff’s quarter-century reign.

Naturally, politicians were quick to highlight similarities in their views and the pope’s, and even President Bush claimed that the pope shared his vision of a “culture of life” (it is telling that “The Daily Show” was the only major “news” outlet to point out that the pope’s vision was more consistent, as he opposed the death penalty).

For its users, the phrase “culture of life” implies a corollary — that those with differing views are committed to a culture of murder. Such an attitude is evident in a memo circulated in the offices of Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., calling the controversy over Terri Schiavo “a great political issue” for Republicans and “a tough issue for Democrats.” Congressional Republican leaders appeared to agree when they attempted a legislative end-run around the judiciary by subpoenaing Schiavo, a woman brain-damaged to the point that she lacked any semblance of a conscious personal identity, to testify before a Congressional panel.

In the wake of Schiavo’s death, national-level politicians have called for nothing less than a wholesale purge of judges whose decisions they disagree with. The effort has been spearheaded by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has called for Congressional review of “an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.” DeLay has been joined by other House Republicans and conservative activists who have been calling for Congressional oversight of judicial decisions, the impeachment of judges and perhaps more drastic measures:

“When their budget starts to dry up, we’ll get their attention … we must get them in line” (Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa).

“I’m in favor of mass impeachment if that’s what it takes” (Michael Schwartz, aide to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.).

At a conference attended by House Republicans, Terri Schiavo’s parents’ lawyer, Alan Keyes, and Roy Moore (he of the Ten Commandments statue in Alabama), lawyer Edward Vieira said that Justice Kennedy — a Reagan appointee who recently authored an opinion finding juvenile executions unconstitutional — “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles” in his decisions.

Wisconsin’s own Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, betrayed a surprisingly poor understanding of the separation of powers when he recently issued a statement that “there does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary.”

In a narrow sense, this is right — Congress exercises power over the judiciary through the appointment of judges and the demarcation of jurisdiction. But the current attack goes further by challenging the basic federal principle of judicial independence. In one sense, the recent spate of and politically motivated criticism of the judiciary is just that — politically motivated. For any Republicans, the result of the Schiavo affair was politically undesirable, and much of the criticism voiced in its wake was designed to curry favor with constituents.

But the continued calls by DeLay and other leading Republicans for Congress and the president to rein in what they characterize as an out-of-control judiciary go beyond the bounds of politicking.

Judges have become a new flashpoint in the national political conversation, and they are being attacked for the very reasons they are able to interpret and apply the law without outside interference. While it is dubious that federal judges would ever find themselves in the position where their decisions are subject to regular Congressional review, it is at the very least troubling that national political leaders would engage in such rhetoric that is as careless as it is incendiary.

It is at best foolish and at worst cynical and mendacious to try to mobilize public anger against servants of the law in the wake of a divisive and unresolved political controversy. The outcome-based and election-driven politics of the House have no place in a judge’s chambers, but because the Schiavo affair ended otherwise than DeLay hoped, he has condemned the federal judiciary for “run[ning] amok.”

Other Congressional leaders have recognized the danger of allowing anti-judicial rhetoric to get out of hand, even members of DeLay’s party, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who recently cautioned that “our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary and about judicial nominees must be toned down.” Even Vice President Dick Cheney summoned the sagacity to point out that “there’s a reason why judges have lifetime appointments.” The anti-judicial antics of the House are a perfect illustration of that reason.

Rob Hunter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.