U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol doesn't know his place in the constitutional order of things. He seems to think he is a little king, immune from criticism by the peasants over whom he rules. As such, he demonstrates the arrogance of the imperial judiciary quite well.

Judge bashing begins with the public, the media and politicians, said Piersol, who is president of the Federal Judges Association. Most mainstream media and politicians are supportive of the judiciary, but some are not, he said.

Judges should expect criticism because their decisions have a direct effect on people's lives, Piersol said. But recent events, such as reported threats against Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, who ruled in the Terri Schiavo case, have caused concerns, he said.

Harsh verbal attacks by elected officials are not productive and can be seen as an invitation to retaliate for judicial decisions, he said.

In the Schiavo case, Greer's rulings faced congressional criticism, Piersol said. Greer reportedly received death threats after he ordered Schiavo's feeding tube be removed and denied a petition from the Florida Department of Children and Families and Gov. Jeb Bush to take Schiavo into state custody.

To confront judge bashing, Piersol said judges should communicate with Congress and their critics to try to temper their positions. In individual cases, where judges can't speak for themselves, they should allow judicial allies to speak on their behalf, he said.

Now I'll concede that death threats are never appropriate -- though I can think of a number of judges who merit a good horse-whipping. But if you cannot handle "harsh criticism", then you do not belong on the bench. If you truly believe that your ruling is in line with the laws and the Constitution of the United States, then your conscience should be clear and any criticism should roll off your back as if you are a duck. But if that criticism gets to you, then you might want to examine the reason why -- and not blame the tone of the critics.

But if, Judge Piersol, you really believe that the harsh criticism of you and your court really do harm to you, then you already have the tool in your possession to put a stop to it. Use your contempt power to imprison those whose contemptuous words impair the dignity and the function of the court. And yes, I am serious -- because after all, that power is there to make sure that the courts and their authority are properly respected. You can then make your case before another judge when the habeas corpus hearing is held to contest the legitimacy of the arrest -- and before the Senate of the United States during the impeachment proceedings. Better yet -- order the arrest of some of these Congressmen and Senators who are issuing "invitation[s] to retaliate for judicial decisions." I mean after all, you are a judge, and they damn well had better respect you and your decisions. Who do they think they are criticizing you?..I particularly love this bit of rhetoric, Judge Piersol.

Mainstream media generally have been supportive of the judiciary, but that doesn't include "virulent talk shows," Piersol said.

"Overheated rhetoric does no good," he said. "(These talk shows) can indirectly do harm."

Come on, judge -- order the arrest of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly. They are a menace, and they do harm by their words. That cannot be permitted, regardless of any purported right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The negative effests of such virulent speech must be stopped, for the good of the courts.

But seriously, judge, how about if I stop being sarcastic for a moment or two, though I do not know that I can restrain my contempt for you long enough to treat you like a man worthy of respect. There is a reason that Article III is the third and least detailed of the three Articles which establish the branched of government. The founders made it clear in their statements about the relative power of those branches. The courts were to have the least power of the three branches. They were to be the least dangerous to liberty, and were expected to be deferential to the elected branches. Somewhere along the way, you and your fellow judges forgot that, and came to believe that the two elected branches were to be subordinate to yours, and the will of the people was to be of little import. When the courts resume their constitutional role and quit usurping the place of Congress, the President, and the several states, then maybe we will quit being so critical -- and will give you the sort of deference your office used to deserve.