Hugh Hewitt comments on the Eleventh Circuit decision declining to order the feeding tube restored in the Terri Schiavo case pending trial:

Judicial contempt for the coordinate branches on this scale is simply staggering. Anyone defending this morning's majority or yesterday's ruling has to defend this disregard of Congressional action.

Hewitt sees the ruling as a "disregard of Congressional action" because of statements made by proponents of the bill such as this statement by Tom DeLay:

"We are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures," DeLay said. "Obviously, the judge will have to put the feeding tube back in or she could die before the case is heard."

Hewitt offered a similar take on yesterday's district court decision:

[The] court simply ignores the obvious intent of an overwhelming majority of the Congress and the agreement of the president. Once again we have on display a judiciary that has grown contemptuous of the directly elected branches. When the Senate returns, the clash over judges will commence again, and proponents of nominees who understand that it is the role of judges to apply the law as intended by Congress will have another powerful example of why such nominees are so needed on the bench.

I recognize that the Schiavo case is an emotional topic, but I'm not sure I follow the basis of Hewitt's criticism. The foundational premise of statutory interpretation is that the role of the judiciary is to obey the text of Congressional enactments, not to watch press conferences and get a sense of what the proponents of legislation actually want. The judiciary shows contempt of the directly elected branches by ignoring the text of the laws they pass, not by following that text. What am I missing?

  I have enabled comments. As always, civil, respectful, and on-topic comments only.