PDA

View Full Version : The “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” Conference



JohnnyMarzetti
04-17-2005, 03:43 PM
This is something we MISSED.
Somehow, the 'mainstream' media does not have its ear to the ground and misses some of the more 'alarming' political meetings.
I've not seen this anywhere - Have you?


Right Wing Watch Online 2005

April: The Right’s Crusade Against the Independent Judiciary

There can be little doubt that the case of Terri Schiavo inflamed passion throughout the country. And those passions, rather than cooling following her death, have fueled a frightening escalation in attacks on the independence of the federal judiciary by far-right groups who have seized it as an opportunity to pressure Senate Republicans into destroying the filibuster and 200 years of Senate tradition.

Beginning on April 7, 2005 the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration hosted a two-day event entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.” Though the JCCCR is a relatively new organization, it is overseen by well-establish right wing figures such as Jerry Falwell, Rick Scarborough, and Phyllis Schlafly. Befitting its pedigree, the conference attracted a myriad of right wing activists and even several members of Congress who all share a passion for, and a mission to, impose their ideology on the federal court system.

Though the Schiavo case was at the forefront of the panelist’s complaints, it soon became clear that they saw it as merely the most recent act of “judicial tyranny” which has thwarted their agenda.

Tom Delay delivered a tape recorded message to open the conference in which he declared that the judiciary has “run amok” and poses a threat to self-government. He went on to warn that Congress must take action to reign in the judiciary and that such actions must be “more than rhetoric.”

During a panel entitled “Judicial Assault On Our Judeo-Christian Heritage,” Don Feder of Vision America claimed that the courts' actions for the last fifty years have been part of a well orchestrated attack on the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage. He warned that "liberal judges have declared unholy war on us" and unless Christians fight back, their faith, family and freedom will be lost. He also promised that whatever prominent Republican was willing to take the lead on the issue of judicial reform and impeachment will probably “have the Republican [presidential] nomination in 2008.”

Mike Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association stated that the Supreme Court has become an agent of tyranny and declared that it is up to those in attendance and those who share their views to demand a change. Farris went on the declare that he wanted Justice Kennedy to become “the poster boy for impeachment” and stated that if current elective representatives won’t do it, it is up to right wingers to elect people who will.

During a panel on “Abortion and Other Life Issues” Michael Schwartz, the Chief of Staff to Senator Tom Coburn, echoed Farris’ views, declaring himself “in favor of mass impeachment, if that is what it takes.” In his view, the Schiavo case was nothing more than an "atrocious act of gang violence by judges" against a helpless woman and he was adamant that the judges involved be impeached. "I hope they serve long sentences,” he added.

Edwin Vieira, speaking on a panel focused on “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny,” told the audience that Justice Kennedy need to be impeached for his majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas because it "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Vieira then drew “on the wisdom of [Joseph] Stalin,” noting that Stalin “had a slogan and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'" As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank pointed out, the full quote is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."

Right wing attacks on the independence of the federal judiciary are nothing new. People like Tom DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly and Gary Bauer have been decrying “judicial tyranny” and seeking to impeach federal judges for nearly a decade. But it is obvious that the Republican party’s right wing base is growing increasingly distressed by its inability to impose its agenda on the nation. Despite the fact that they have ideological allies in the White House and both chambers of Congress, these radically conservative activists feel that their agenda is being thwarted by the independent judiciary. And so the masks have come off. They are now openly demanding an end to the nation’s independent federal judiciary. They are calling for mass impeachment and even criminal prosecution of federal judges who disagree with them. And they will soon be demanding that Bush remake the Supreme Court with appointments that will eliminate a constitutional right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and much more. Unfortunately, these leaders are no easily dismissible fringe – they are power brokers at the center of Republican Party politics, with influence in the White House and among the leaders of Congress. It’s urgent that the American public see them for who they are, and understand the threat they pose to our very constitutional order.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18493

JohnnyMarzetti
04-17-2005, 03:54 PM
And here's how Senator Bill Frist shores up his bid for the presidency, by pitting "people of faith" against everyone else. We should be contacting every clergy person we know and raising an unholy ruckus.

Where is the outrage?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/leolabeth/3f9f9460.jpg

Social Justice Sunday

by George Lakoff
Fri Apr 15th, 2005 at 17:01:06 PDT

The right-wing frame is now complete and Bill Frist has signed on with Tom DeLay: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now used against people of faith." This is not just the nuclear option; it is the thermonuclear option. The implicit claim is that every religious person is a right-wing conservative. Filibustering against horrendous right-wing judges is repudiating all believers in every religion – and being racist to boot. The national campaign is on. Sunday April 24 is booked for national TV at a Kentucky megachurch and called "Justice Sunday."

We must respond. We will call April 24 "Social Justice Sunday." We must show that spiritual progressives are alive and well and willing not just to speak out, but to shout out.

The Ressurrected One
04-17-2005, 09:28 PM
We should be contacting every clergy person we know and raising an unholy ruckus.
I say you should get started tomorrow! Do you actually know clergy people?

Like you, The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59554-2005Apr16.html) finds it "beyond the pale" that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would participate in a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which argues that Democrats are opposing some of President Bush's judicial nominees because the nominees are people of faith. The Post essentially demands that Frist make it clear that he does not believe this "slander." Yet the Post makes no real attempt to show that the "slander" is untrue. It argues that there are "people of faith and goodwill on both sides of the issue." But that can be true and it can still be the case that at least some Democrats are opposing some nominees because of their faith.

In fact, some are. William Pryor is a highly principled conservative (Pryor, Alabama's Attorney General, just oversaw the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama state courthouse, even though he profoundly disagrees with the ruling that required the removal [when was the last time any Democrat of note did anything this principled?]. This was consistent with his long record of enforcing laws with which he disagrees. Yet the Senate Democrats continue to block Pryor's nomination on the pretext that his "strongly held views" will interfere with his ability to follow the law as a judge. Charles Krauthammer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A62310-2003Aug28&notFound=true) draws the obvious inference that the real reason for the Democrats' opposition is the content of Pryor's views coupled with the fact that they emanate from religious belief.) who has declined to follow his personal views where they are in conflict with the requirements of the law. Yet the Democrats have blocked his nomination, in part, on the theory that because his views on abortion are founded on "deeply held religious beliefs," he cannot be trusted to follow the law when it comes to this issue. This argument indeed amounts to opposing Pryor because he is a person of faith and moral conviction:

The Senate Democrats don't claim that having passionate views about issues like abortion should disqualify someone from being a judge. Nor do they claim that having passionate views that stem from adherence to doctrine should so disqualify nominees. Doctrinaire feminist nominees have never encountered difficulty from the Democrats. But in the case of William Pryor, the Senate Democrats base their opposition (as far as I can tell) on (a) his passionate views about the issue of abortion and (b) the concern that, because these views stem from deeply held religious beliefs, they will influence his rulings in cases on the subject where there is room for disagreement (Pryor has said he will follow settled Supreme Court doctrine). To me, this is discrimination against Catholic doctrine and against its adherents, namely believing Catholics. The fact that the discrimination stems from animus against the doctrine, rather than the person, is not a mitigating factor. Ill treatment of Jews because they do not accept Christ is religious discrimination (and indeed anti-Semitism) even if it is not motivated by a stereotype (Jews are greedy) or raw hatred. It is also discrimination (and anti-Semitism) even if the same treatment is imposed on non-Jews who do not accept Christ, and even if Jews who accept Christ ("Jews for Jesus") are not ill-treated.

The Post, naturally, has no desire to parse what opponents of Pryor have said to see whether the nominees religious beliefs are a factor in their opposition. But it loves to parse the statements of Tom DeLay, John Cornyn, and Todd Tiahrt in search of "aggressiveness in conservative attacks on the judiciary that cumulatively takes one's breath away." The Post might be less breathless if it parsed these statements honestly. For example, the Post notes that Cornyn posited a connection between violence against judges and the perception that judges are "making political decisions." It goes on to state that Cornyn "later insisted that he was not condoning violence against the judiciary." But, in fact, Cornyn stated in his original speech (not just later) that violence against judges was "entirely without justification." So the Post implicitly is misrepresenting Cornyn's original remarks.

The Post has decided essentially to ignore the mistreatment of Bush's nominees on the theory that both parties do this. Through this dodge, it can direct its outrage exclusively at the Republican reaction to the Democratic tactics. In reality, as Rick Santorum points out in today's Post, the Republicans have never killed any court of appeals nominee through a filibuster. In addition, the number of nominees the Democrats have killed through filibusters or the threat thereof (16 of 52) is unprecedented. Indeed, Bush has had a smaller percentage of appeals court nominees approved than any present in memory.

The Post's partisanship on this issue may not fall "beyond the pale," but does the paper no credit. And you stand with them...

Nbadan
04-18-2005, 01:46 PM
Republicans have never killed any court of appeals nominee through a filibuster.

..but they have killed Supreme court nominees, as well as, numerous Federal and District Court nominees by Clinton and other democrats. Look, lets no fuck around with symantics, if Frist and the other Republican Senate whores decide to go nuclear the Senate will come to a halt. Which isn't such a bad thing if you really think about it.

The Ressurrected One
04-18-2005, 01:48 PM
..but they have killed Supreme court nominees, as well as, numerous Federal and District Court nominees by Clinton and other democrats.
In committee; where such things are supposed to be decided. All Clinton nominees that made it out of committee were given a proper up or down vote by the Senate...no filibuster. Period.

Look, lets no fuck around with symantics, if Frist and the other Republican Senate whores decide to go nuclear the Senate will come to a halt. Which isn't such a bad thing if you really think about it.
No, it's not...but, Democrats could do themselves a favor and quit establishing themselves as a bunch of sour grapes obstructionists.