« (insert expletive here) | Main | An Open Letter to the National Press Club »

March 29, 2005

Waging A Guerilla War Against The Republic

Social Conservatives are increasing the tempo of their attacks against the form of government which the Founders gave us. Specifically by attacking the judicial branch of government and seeking to undermine it's credibility. The Terri Schiavo case is only the most recent bandwagon they've jumped on in order to further their cause.

T.R. Goldman of the Legal Times explains:

For the politicians, protesters and talk radio hosts, it hardly mattered that well-known legal scholars on both sides of the political divide believed that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore's March 22 decision not to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted was sound.

Or that a day after Whittemore's decision, a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the full court -- a majority of whose members were appointed by Republican presidents -- endorsed Whittemore's reasoning.

Or that the U.S. Supreme Court then tacitly affirmed Whittemore's decision by refusing to hear the case.

Instead, the series of legal decisions that played out over a dramatic four days last week only bolstered their sense that the judiciary is not only too independent, it is out of control. "The judges," Robert Schindler told reporters after a day of adverse rulings, "are running this country."

Last week Lindsay at Majikthise summed it up like this (which I cited earlier):

Some people ask why Terri Schiavo matters in the grand scheme of things. Why should we care about the fate of one oblivious individual and her squabbling relatives?

Because behind the Republican veneer of crass political opportunism lurks a much more sinister agenda. The Republicans aren't just pandering to evangelicals this time. Their real objective is to crush the authority of the judicial branch.

I don't care what you think about feeding tubes or Michael Schiavo's private life. If you support the actions of the federal government in the Schiavo case, you are undermining a fundamental principle of our democracy: the separation of powers.

She's absolutely right. But the public doesn't support what Social Conservatives are trying to do via Congress. 82% of Americans disagree with how both the Social Conservative-dominated Congress and the Social Conservative President Bush have meddled in the Schiavo case. But the unholy alliance of the extremist religious right and NeoCons don't care. They glibly ignore reality and continue framing the issue as if it were the Judiciary against the people.

Goldman continues...

Added House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on Thursday, shortly after the Supreme Court denied certiorari: "Once again, they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress."

But conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec saw it differently -- as a triumph of the courts over the passion of the moment.

"It is with great credit that every level of the federal courts recognized that law rather than emotion and politics has to prevail," says Kmiec, who teaches at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "[W]e are also a nation of law, and there is a right way and wrong way to advance the protection of our fundamental rights. ... And I say that as someone very much inclined to favor Terri Schiavo and her parents."

Imagine that... "The rule of law" is a good thing, says Kmiec. You'd be tempted to think that after the whole Clinton Impeachment thing that the Social Conservatives who strongly backed it would be first in line to stand up in defense of the rule of law. But, you'd be mistaken. Occam's Razor seems to strongly favor my theory that Social Conservatives don't give a damn about the law. They only care about ruling. As an old acquaintance from my days debating Creation/Evolution would put it, they're "lying for Jesus."

Just a little bit more here from Goldman's article:

Congress has recently attacked the independence of the courts on a number of fronts.

A House-sponsored measure to defend the Ten Commandments declares that their display is protected under the Constitution's establishment clause. The bill, which has 118 co-sponsors, explicitly requires the courts to accept that assertion and forbids them to rule on its constitutionality.

Another bill, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004, amends the U.S. Code to deny jurisdiction to any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to decide any question about the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance, "or its validity under the Constitution." The bill, which passed the House last September, 247-173, is awaiting action in the Senate.

And a pending constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman expressly forbids any court -- state or federal -- from deciding whether the federal Constitution or any state constitution holds otherwise.

Notice the theme there. Social Conservatives have a very narrow, very specific agenda - circumventing the rule of law in order to impose their religious doctrines upon those whom they can't persuade to willingly accept and practice those same doctrines. Not surprisingly this approach runs directly contrary to the example and very explicit directs given by the God/man that Social Conservatives are fond of giving lip service to - Jesus.

Posted by Kevin at March 29, 2005 10:58 AM