Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

au1929
au1929, I agree with your post except to admit that the Democrat's issue is not really about the appointment of federal judges. It is all about supreme court nominees expected during Bush's second term.

My worst nightmare related to Bush's victory in 2004 was the possibility that he would have 2 or 3 supreme court nominations open for him. That's why the Dems are ferociously fighting to preserve the senate rule allowing filibusters. Since the Dems don't have enough votes, it's the only remedy left to them to prevent the packing of the supreme court.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis
The Family Research Council
by: Mr. Brian Newell

Summary:

Activist judges are overstepping their authority more and more, legislating from the bench rather than interpreting our laws with Constitutional guidance.

Not true. The judges are applying the Constitution to the cases and controversies presented. They are not legislating from the bench.

Quote:

Meanwhile, qualified judges are being prevented from getting an up-or-down vote in the United States Senate.

Is a judge really qualified if he/she bases rulings on the moral majority's religious beliefs or moral disapproval of other rather than on the Constitution?

Quote:

· Activist judges are overstepping their authority more and more often, legislating from the bench rather than interpreting our laws with constitutional guidance.

This is not true. Show me where the cases where the courts have increasingly legislated from the bench rather than applied the law.

Quote:

The foundation of our democracy, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," is thwarted.

This is not true. Our government is not a pure democracy. A pure democracy would allow 51 percent of the people to deprive the other 49 percent of the people of their rights. The foundation of our government is NOT democracy. Every individual is guaranteed a republican form of government wherein individual rights are protected from the whims of the majority.

Quote:

An elite class, unaccountable to the American people, defines our values and shapes our culture.

This is not true. We the people defined our values and shaped our culture and our future as a nation when they established and ordained the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to SECURE the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our courts have a constitutionally-mandated duty to define the liberty of all, not to impose a moral code on society.

Quote:

We are becoming a government of "cultural elites" over the rule of law.

Not true. The rule of law does not allow the majority of people to use the power of the state to impose their beliefs on others through state laws. Moral disapproval alone is never a sufficient reason to enact a law that denies or disparages the rights and liberties of others. The fact that the Constitution does not tolerate moral disapproval as a legitimate basis for state laws does not mean that judges have forsaken the rule of law -- it means that the judges are enforcing the rule of law (the Constitution).

Quote:

It is the law that judges, not the judge

.

Exactly. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the duty of our judges to uphold the Constitution and to secure individual rights to life and liberty from deprivations by the majority.

Quote:

Courts increasingly invoke the "reason" of foreign courts to arrive at the conclusion the judge seeks to promote. We have seen this in the Supreme Court cases Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Goodridge v. Massachusetts (2003), and most recently, Roper v. Simmons (2005).

Not true. I have debunked this lie in another thread. The Supreme Court has always based its rulings on our own supreme law of the land.

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reveals the growing trend, stating that the Court tends "(t)o invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, (and that) is not reasoned decision making, but sophistry." (Scalia, J. dissenting opinion in Roper v. Simmons)

Justice Scalia based his dissenting opinion on the faulty premise that the Court invoked alien law. The Court did NOT invoke alien law. To say it did is misrepresentation, pure and simple. The Court determined, based on OUR national facts, that inflicting the death penalty on children was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment.

After the Court made the determination based on OUR supreme law of the land, the Court then noted that we were the only nation in the world that still imposed the death penalty, although rarely, upon children. The Court did not base its decision on foreign law.

Quote:

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, the Court declared that a popularly held moral disapproval of a certain action was insufficient grounds for government prohibition of the action.

That is true. The Court ruled that the moral majority may not use moral disapproval alone as a basis for denying or disparaging the liberty of others. The Court held that the majority of the people could not use the power of the state to impose their beliefs on others through the enactment of criminal laws. This is the essense of living in AMERICA . . . so what's the beef?

Quote:

Each judicial nominee deserves fair and respectful treatment, with a chance to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Sure. However, if a judicial nominee states that he / she wants to overrule Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas based on religious beliefs, that person has no business sitting on the highest court in the land. It is the duty of the court to define the liberty of all, not to impose a moral code upon society.

Quote:

The Constitution is clear regarding the nomination and confirmation process: "[The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States..." U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sect. 2.

Yes . . . the constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Live with it. The President does not have unlimited power to appoint any person he chooses to public office. At least some members of the Senate understand that there are some judges more qualified than others to fullfill the constitutional obligation to protect the liberty of all.

Quote:

As Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated, "Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches."

Taxpayers spend $5.8 billion dollars every MONTH to wage war in Iraq and there is no end in sight. How does that benefit America?

0 Replies

Re: More from the Family Research Council

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
More from The Family Research Council---BBB

Questions and Answers: Why Should I Care About Judges and Judicial Nominations?

Q - What do you mean by "activist" judges?

A - "Activist" judges are judges who impose their own policy preferences in their decisions. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. ...Activist judges effectively take away your right to affect policy by your vote.

and yet these same people condemned judge grier for not using his southern baptist religion to write an opinion in their favor. it's been reported that he was also ousted from his church over the same.

more born again hypocrisy.

Don't Tread on ME:

You are wrong in attributing opposition to the Florida state court decision to withdraw the feeding tube to Terri Schiavo exclusively to the "moral majority" who falsely accuse the judges of activism and legislating from the bench.

I am not a member of the "moral majority." I am a strong advocate of the inalienable rights to life and liberty.

No state shall deprive any person of life or liberty without due process of law. Due process includes both substantive due process and procedural due process. I believe the state laws as applied to Terri Schiavo, a person who could not speak for herself, deprived her of her fundamental, inalienable right to life. My belief that the law was unconstitutionally applied does not make me a hypocrit.

0 Replies

Re: Roe vs Wade was based on the 9th amendment

Setanta wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
From the Family Research Council statement above:

"Q - How have activist judges abused their power?

A - Judges are abusing their power if they read into the Constitution principles that are not declared by the plain language of the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But nowhere does it say that there should be a strict "separation of church and state" at all levels of government, barring any acknowledgment of God. The decision legalizing abortion was based on the "right to privacy"--but no such right is declared in the Constitution. [/b]

This quote which BBB supplied is simply astonishing. This is a statement from authority, and a bald lie. This sort of thing, however, goes down well with a target audience of great emotional involvement, but little actual education.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the fourth amendment to the constitution, ratified December, 1791. This is the portion of the Bill of Rights which is the basis for the privacy rights recognized by the courts. On the particular point of abortion legislation, please note: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . .

In Roe v. Wade, the majority opinion of the Supremes recognized the compelling interest which states may have to regulate abortion--however, prosecution for abortion would have been counter to one's right to be secure in one's person. We had a thread here early on in which someone was making outrageous statements about the Roe v. Wade and what the Supremes had ruled, so i posted the relevant portion of the majority opinion in which Mr. Justice Blackmun clearly posits that states have a compelling interest to regulate abortion--they simply cannot outlaw it. That rather silenced the hysterical right wing element in that thread, as actually reading a court's decision is beyond the intent of their ranting.

For the record: The Constitution does not confer rights; the Constitution prohibits the GOVERNMENT from infringing, abridging, denying, disparaging, and violating the inalienable rights of the people, including, but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, when the strict constructionists look at the constitution as a mere enumeration of rights and claim that rights do not exist unless there is explicit language in the constitution, they are perpetuating a grand misrepresentation concerning the entire foundation upon which this country was established and a constitution was written: To SECURE the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court stated there was no constitutional right to engage in sodomy. Years later, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Court had misapprehended the liberty interest involved and had demeaned the privacy rights of the individuals involved. It is the Court's OBLIGATION to define the liberty of all, not to impose a moral code upon society.

The constitution does not confer rights to life and liberty -- it SECURES those rights. The very essense of liberty is the ability to live one's life free of unreasonable governmental intrusions or interference in our private lives. It is unreasonable for the government to prohibit or regulate our conduct unless our conduct injures other people's equal rights to life and liberty.

ALL citizens need to understand and apply these basic tenets when they get the urge to impose their moral values upon others through the enactment of laws.

0 Replies

Re: More from the Family Research Council

Debra_Law wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
More from The Family Research Council---BBB

Questions and Answers: Why Should I Care About Judges and Judicial Nominations?

Q - What do you mean by "activist" judges?

A - "Activist" judges are judges who impose their own policy preferences in their decisions. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. ...Activist judges effectively take away your right to affect policy by your vote.

and yet these same people condemned judge grier for not using his southern baptist religion to write an opinion in their favor. it's been reported that he was also ousted from his church over the same.

more born again hypocrisy.

Don't Tread on ME:

I am not a member of the "moral majority." ... My belief that the law was unconstitutionally applied does not make me a hypocrit.

then why are you offended when my remarks were aimed at the born agains, or as you call them, the moral majority ? i was pretty clear about that.

as a person that appears to know the laws pretty well you are certainly entitled to voice an opinion that you don't believe that it was carried out properly. the courts disagree with you. and, well, they are the courts. somebody has to have the final word eventually. we don't have to always agree with the decisions. but we must abide by them or else our entire structure will become meaningless, will it not ?

the religious extremists are basing their opinion on their religion, which despite what they claim, is not the basis of american government. it is an opinion based on emotion, not on law. yet they seek to label and remove judges who do not use their religion in place of law in the decision making process. that would be judicial activism wouldn't it ?

yet activism is exactly what they accuse judge grier of when he doesn't use his personal religion in his ruling.

that's why i say they are being hypocritical. and apparently the majority of the american public agrees with that sentiment if the polls are accurate.

0 Replies

Re: More from the Family Research Council

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

. . . and yet these same people condemned judge grier for not using his southern baptist religion to write an opinion in their favor. it's been reported that he was also ousted from his church over the same.

more born again hypocrisy.

Debra_Law wrote:

I am not a member of the "moral majority." ... My belief that the law was unconstitutionally applied does not make me a hypocrit.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

then why are you offended when my remarks were aimed at the born agains, or as you call them, the moral majority ? i was pretty clear about that.

I noted that the religious extremists are not the only ones who opposed Judge Greer's judicial determination to withdraw Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. So, whatever derogatory point you were trying to make about "these same people condemned judge grier [sic]" lacks credibility because there were ample legitimate reasons (other than religious zealotry) for opposing Judge Greer's order.

0 Replies

Re: More from the Family Research Council

Debra_Law wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
. . . and yet these same people condemned judge grier for not using his southern baptist religion to write an opinion in their favor. it's been reported that he was also ousted from his church over the same.

more born again hypocrisy.

Debra_Law wrote:
I am not a member of the "moral majority." ... My belief that the law was unconstitutionally applied does not make me a hypocrit.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
then why are you offended when my remarks were aimed at the born agains, or as you call them, the moral majority ? i was pretty clear about that.

I noted that the religious extremists are not the only ones who opposed Judge Greer's judicial determination to withdraw Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. So, whatever derogatory point you were trying to make about "these same people condemned judge grier [sic]" lacks credibility because there were ample legitimate reasons (other than religious zealotry) for opposing Judge Greer's order.

do you call grier an "activist judge" ?

0 Replies

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Quote:

A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time

By FRANK RICH

Published: April 24, 2005

Whatever your religious denomination, or lack of same, it was hard not to be swept up in last week's televised pageantry from Rome: the grandeur of St. Peter's Square, the panoply of the cardinals, the continuity of history embodied by the joyous emergence of the 265th pope. As a show of faith, it's a tough act to follow. But that has not stopped some ingenious American hucksters from trying.

Tonight is the much-awaited "Justice Sunday," the judge-bashing rally being disseminated nationwide by cable, satellite and Internet from a megachurch in Louisville. It may not boast a plume of smoke emerging from above the Sistine Chapel, but it will feature its share of smoke and mirrors as well as traditions that, while not dating back a couple of millenniums, do at least recall the 1920's immortalized in "Elmer Gantry." These traditions have less to do with the earnest practice of religion by an actual church, as we witnessed from Rome, than with the exploitation of religion by political operatives and other cynics with worldly ends. While Sinclair Lewis wrote that Gantry, his hypocritical evangelical preacher, "was born to be a senator," we now have senators who are born to be Gantrys. One of them, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, hatched plans to be beamed into tonight's festivities by videotape, a stunt that in itself imbues "Justice Sunday" with a touch of all-American spectacle worthy of "The Wizard of Oz."

Like the wizard himself, "Justice Sunday" is a humbug, albeit one with real potential consequences. It brings mass-media firepower to a campaign against so-called activist judges whose virulence increasingly echoes the rhetoric of George Wallace and other segregationists in the 1960's. Back then, Wallace called for the impeachment of Frank M. Johnson Jr., the federal judge in Alabama whose activism extended to upholding the Montgomery bus boycott and voting rights march. Despite stepped-up security, a cross was burned on Johnson's lawn and his mother's house was bombed.

The fraudulence of "Justice Sunday" begins but does not end with its sham claims to solidarity with the civil rights movement of that era. "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias," says the flier for tonight's show, "and now it is being used against people of faith." In truth, Bush judicial nominees have been approved in exactly the same numbers as were Clinton second-term nominees. Of the 13 federal appeals courts, 10 already have a majority of Republican appointees. So does the Supreme Court. It's a lie to argue, as Tom DeLay did last week, that such a judiciary is the "left's last legislative body," and that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, is the poster child for "outrageous" judicial overreach. Our courts are as highly populated by Republicans as the other two branches of government.

The "Justice Sunday" mob is also lying when it claims to despise activist judges as a matter of principle. Only weeks ago it was desperately seeking activist judges who might intervene in the Terri Schiavo case as boldly as Scalia & Co. had in Bush v. Gore. The real "Justice Sunday" agenda lies elsewhere. As Bill Maher summed it up for Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show last week: " 'Activist judges' is a code word for gay." The judges being verbally tarred and feathered are those who have decriminalized gay sex (in a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Kennedy) as they once did abortion and who countenance marriage rights for same-sex couples. This is the animus that dares not speak its name tonight. To paraphrase the "Justice Sunday" flier, now it's the anti-filibuster campaign that is being abused to protect bias, this time against gay people.

Anyone who doesn't get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of "people of faith." But "people of faith," as used by the event's organizers, is another duplicitous locution; it's a code word for only one specific and exclusionary brand of Christianity. The trade organization representing tonight's presenters, National Religious Broadcasters, requires its members to "sign a distinctly evangelical statement of faith that would probably exclude most Catholics and certainly all Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist programmers," according to the magazine Broadcasting & Cable. The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."

Continued
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/opinion/24rich.html?th&emc=th

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Quote:
A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time

By FRANK RICH

Published: April 24, 2005

.....The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."

Continued
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/opinion/24rich.html?th&emc=th

so, au... will they be breaking out the hoods and burning crosses before or after the frist broadcast ?

0 Replies

DTOM
That will happen as soon as they complete the take over of the US government. I for one am more worried about the threat posed by the religious right than that of any foreign government. They are the enemy within.

0 Replies

ever see a movie called "the handmaid's tale" ?

0 Replies

No, have never been much of a movie goer.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

No, have never been much of a movie goer.

rent it. it's robert duvall and natasha richardson, faye dunaway.

the religious right takes over the governmant and a civil war breaks out with the country divided in to two territories. it'll look vaguely familiar.

0 Replies

I'm not a huge fan of my countrywoman's books, but Handmaid's Tale is prescient. I did not think so earlier, but recent events have demonstrated that I was naive.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ever see a movie called "the handmaid's tale" ?

No, but I read the book. It's fiction, DTOM. Smile

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of my countrywoman's books, but Handmaid's Tale is prescient. I did not think so earlier, but recent events have demonstrated that I was naive.

there are those in this country that would love nothing more than to see things play out as they do in that story.

i'm pretty sure that they are in the smallest minority, but as we've seen in other countries, that's not always an obstacle.

better safe than sorry, i say. maintain the complete separation of church and state.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
ever see a movie called "the handmaid's tale" ?

No, but I read the book. It's fiction, DTOM.

i hope so. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Bush's approval rating is now the lowest of any second term president on record. That restores one's faith somewhat in American citizens' distaste for extremism.

0 Replies

You Gotta Have Faith Laughing

By Art Buchwald

Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page C04

Jeepers creepers, the Republicans' dirty secret is out. The Democrats who are filibustering Congress are against people of faith. Leading the attack is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who speaks for all of God's children in the GOP.

Zack, the zealot, clued me in.

I asked, "Are you calling everyone who filibusters against judicial nominees an infidel?"

He replied, "What would you call them?"

I said, "Some of my best friends are Democrats, and I personally know several who go to church."

"That doesn't mean they have any faith. You can't believe in the Almighty if you don't believe in President Bush."

I said, "I see what you mean, but if you play the religious card, aren't you tearing down the wall between church and state?"

"You don't win political elections unless you mix the two."

"If you declare Democrats people of no faith, what happens to the two-party system?"

"We will be stronger than ever, God willing."

"Is there some other way of attacking the opposition than saying that they are infidels?"

"The big lie is always the best. You hear it once, you hear it twice, and decide where there is smoke there is fire. The third time you hear about it, you are sure it is true."

I said, "I have a solution. Let the filibuster rule stand, but a senator may only read from the Bible."

"Senator Frist has rejected that. He wants an up-and-down vote on judges who will adhere strictly to the Constitution and will make rulings to satisfy the religious right."

I asked, "Do your people believe that the Devil works for the other side?"

"More than that, we believe that all the Democrats will go to Hell."

"And the GOP will go to Heaven?"

"That's a given."

"So in the next election the people will be asked to decide between the Devil and God as their commander in chief?"

"That is what the founding fathers had in mind."

"I knew the Devil would be somewhere, but you can't say he is working in the halls of Congress."

"Where do you think he would be working?"

"Beats the hell out of me."

"This is a struggle for the souls of men. It follows if a senator filibusters against conservative judges he is full of evil and demons."

I said, "Our politics sound more like Iraqi politics every day."

"Hopefully, we are a democracy, just as we hope the Muslim people will have a democracy. But to have one we depend on the faith of our leaders. This is why the Democrats are so dangerous. They are using the Senate rules to make their point. We are using God to make our point."

"Hallelujah," I said.

Zack said, "Blessed are those who are against abortion, same-sex marriages, and would smite down The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic."

Zack and I held hands and said, "Amen."

© 2005, Tribune Media Services

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

You Gotta Have Faith

By Art Buchwald

Jeepers creepers, the Republicans' dirty secret is out. The Democrats who are filibustering Congress are against people of faith. Leading the attack is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who speaks for all of God's children in the GOP.

Zack, the zealot, clued me in.

* * *

"The big lie is always the best. You hear it once, you hear it twice, and decide where there is smoke there is fire. The third time you hear about it, you are sure it is true."

* * *

"So in the next election the people will be asked to decide between the Devil and God as their commander in chief?"

"That is what the founding fathers had in mind."

Funny, Funny, Funny! LMAO

But wait . . . it's NOT funny. There are millions of people out there who live, breathe, and think in the spitting image of Zack, the Zealot. They wouldn't know what the founding fathers had in mind if they actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. They would still believe the lies. (That's why we're the laughing stock of the world.)

0 Replies

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know