Lowlights from Justice Sunday: Part Deux
Lowlights from Justice Sunday: Part Deux
Wary that John Roberts might not be sufficiently fanatical, religious far right leaders have been backing away from President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee. In an e-mail message to supporters, event organizer Tony Perkins wrote “Trust but verify.†Perkins also made it clear that Justice Sunday Part Deux “will be no pep rally for [Roberts’] confirmation.†Instead, Perkins stated the goal of the event was “to educate evangelical Christians about the U.S. Supreme Court and get them talking to friends and elected officials about what they want from their justices.†But rather than educating, the overheated rhetoric embarrassed anyone who respects the independent judiciary and the system of checks and balances. Here are some highlights:
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League: Donohue “suggested a constitutional amendment to say that ‘unless a judicial vote is unanimous, you cannot overturn a law created by Congress.’ The court is trying to ‘take the hearts and souls of our culture.’†He also laid out his plans for domination: “Catholics and other Christians together, we are going to move to the front of the bus and take command of the wheel.â€
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: After denouncing America’s judicial system as “judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy,†DeLay blasted recent Supreme Court rulings: “Rights are invented out of whole cloth. Longstanding traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges.” He continued on to state that “All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes. The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress.” He continued, “This fact, understood by every high school civics student, has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself,’ he said.â€
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family: “America’s most powerful judges are ‘unelected, unaccountable and arrogant.’” He continued on to say, “These activist, unelected judges believe they know better than the American people about the direction the country should go. The framers of our great nation did not intend for the courts to have absolute and final power over us.â€
Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum: “How do the judges get away with such outrageous decisions? By asserting that Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land. But you know that is not true. That is a terrible heresy.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe the GAY STEM CELLS can rewrite the constitution for them. Or better yet have Code Pink re-gay them all by a five to four decision!
August 15th, 2005 at 1:43 pmGreat post – thanks
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is unelected, unaccountable and arrogant. Ditto for Tony Perkins.
August 15th, 2005 at 1:46 pmBill Donohue Pres. of Catholic League,
August 15th, 2005 at 1:51 pmWhat were the priests doing in the back of the bus with those boys? Bet they can go to the front, and steer with no hands if you know what I mean.
Dobson calling judges arrogant – I guess this is no God, otherwise he would have been smited (smote?) (smitten?).
August 15th, 2005 at 1:52 pmThe Bibble is the drool of the land! God Damn it!
August 15th, 2005 at 1:57 pmJustice Sunday:let the hypocrisy and closed-mindedness begin
August 15th, 2005 at 2:10 pmIf Bill Donahue has an opportunity to legislate all young boys will be at risk.
I’m not trying to single out religions and I generally don’t comment on religion but I will not sit idley by and allow priests the right to molest.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:33 pmJesus was a voice of peace and love against a corrupt murderous empire. ergo, Jesus lives more in Kucinich than in Bush. Am I right?
August 15th, 2005 at 2:34 pmI have to agree with Dobson. These are the same judges who ruled on Bush v. Gore, and look where that got us!!
August 15th, 2005 at 2:42 pmJust the idea of Justice Sunday disgusts me. Such blatant political manipulations using spiritual America is singly the greatest argument for separation of church and state. This, folks, is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent when they wrote the first amendment establishing the concept of not mingling church dogma with reason. (Remember, we even refer to the times back in 1789 as the Age of Reason)
I think it is appropriate to remind ourselves of why this official separation has been made throughout our history. It is not to protect government, although it does that quite well. It is to protect the church and that is why Justice Sunday disgusts me so.
The church is to worship and celebrate the spiritual. It there so we make take the time to connect with our spiritual selves at least once a week. In the Christian tradition, in all denominations that celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday, it is a time out from work to worship God and to give thanks for the blessings He bestows upon his people.
When the ethically challenged Tom DeLay began preaching his fundamentalist government doctrine from the pulpit, was he taking time out from the affairs of the earthly world to worship God? Absolutely not! Was he there to celebrate the Sabbath and give thanks for blessings? Not from what I heard. Was what he did, what all who participated in the ill named Justice Sunday a sin against the Christian Sabbath? It was indeed a sin, if you fundamentally interpret the Holy Bible!
I ask all thinking Americans, how do the pontifications of Tom DeLay, James Dobson and Bill Donahue differ from the calls for jihad made in extremist mosques by any one of the perpetrators of 9/11 or the Iraqi Insurgency?
Myself, I see no difference beyond one group claims to be Christian, while the other claims the Islamic faith. Neither group, I’m afraid, are very pro-American.
(First appeared on The Kicking Donkey – http://www.thekickingdonkey.com)
August 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pmOhioan-
Did Jesus advocate forcefully taking money from others in order to help the less fortunate?
Or did he advocate people voluntarily helping the less fortunate?
Big difference.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:46 pmtony
Jesus said it would be easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter heaven as well.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:50 pmKrazny-
Yes. So people should voluntarily give up their possesions to help the less fortunate. I agree.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:00 pmYou can keep your possessions. We don’t want your crap. You want to live here and prosper, there is an admission and usage fee. Otherwise you are just squatting. We can ask you to move along.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:10 pmReally, Tony. Your simplistic, narrow libertarian bullshit grows tiresome, after the first time you spout it off.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:11 pmIf you don’t like the deal, Tony, you are free to voluntarily leave. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to stay.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:13 pmAlso, rich/evil Americans are among the most generous people in the world, as evidenced by the $1.5 billion donated by private individuals/businesss (not by the gov’t) for tsunami relief. I’m glad that we have so much wealth, and I’m sure the tsunami victims are as well.
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/tsunami_relief_giving_1-18-05.html
August 15th, 2005 at 3:22 pmKillCon-
August 15th, 2005 at 3:25 pmYes, freedom is not free. I don’t mind being taxed to preserve liberty. I object to being taxed to support wealth redistribution in the form of social security, medicare, medicaid, and other anti-freedom schemes.
Tony,
thank you for hijacking the thread to your favorite topic, but I wish to switch it back. do you like what the above favor? a theocratic united states?. you have often voiced anti-religious views, so I don’t believe that is what you would like.
Dobson and perkins are not trying to destroy the premise that our country was founded on to replace it with a very narrow view of how things should be done. Do you think, truly think, that they will not try to restrict the rights you crave?.
Please stop with the I should keep everything I have crap, you live in Alaska a state where you are handed money every year by the government, just for living in alaska. If you are such a rugged independant individual move to New York and see how well you fare. there.
otherwise post on the topics.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:29 pmThat’s a crock and you know it. You get taxed. The government wastes it. We are going to fight over what they waste it on. I have not seen anybody invade this country since 1812. The “preserving liberty” that is going on is nothing more than naked aggression and imperialism. Pack it up and move it on out, pal. You ain’t going to like it here. Try Mexico.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:32 pmWhat I find so ironic about the whole thing is the Animal Farm logic they use. Example – judges who refused to turn control of Shavio’s position from her lawful husband to anyone else are being branded as judicial actavists. I’d be lol if it wasn’t so upside down. They don’t see that those that wanted to CHANGE the way things are done are the judicial actavists.
Wonder what kind of mirrors they have?
August 15th, 2005 at 3:43 pmHere’s the special edition, commemorative Justice Sunday II program.
August 15th, 2005 at 4:36 pmI wish the rapture would come and remove the American taliban already.
August 15th, 2005 at 4:47 pm“we are going to move to the front of the bus and take command of the wheel”
August 15th, 2005 at 4:58 pmor put into normal parlance: “we are going to highjack the bus”
I wonder what values they taught when Bill Donohue went to Sunday School.
Krazy, I did get off topic, but only by responding to comments.
Anywho, for your comment, I believe that people should be able to worship whatever religion they want. I believe gov’t should not make a law punishing anyone because of their religion, or non-belief in any. Gov’t should preserve liberty/rule of law, not morality…that’s probably where I differ with these religous people.
I don’t live in Alaska, that is somebody else. Buckshot, maybe? If I did, I would be still be against the handouts.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:24 pmKrazny,
That was Buckshot.
Tony, I would like to debate you but I’m just too tired. Social Security is not a form of wealth redistribution. You seem to conflate “freedom” with “free”. Anti-freedom programs? WTF are you talking about? You are free to leave, or stay. To live in the greatest country in the world, if we can ever get it back to that again, is not going to be cheap. You can deal with it or leave.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:50 pmLook Tony, sell your taxation is theft bullshit if you want. It’s a free country, but no one in their right mind buys that. If they did, you’d be rich like Grover Norquist, but he’s going to be indicted soon.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:52 pmYou gotta love the left. Their idea of charity is to take it out of other people’s pockets and grandly make the contribution. I don’t want to convert you to my religion – but please quit acting so offended if I practice my religion and you’re forced to (gasp!!!) SEE a menorah or a creche. If I were an atheist and they were saying the Pledge of Allegiance around me at school, I would either keep my mouth shut if I didn’t wish to participate or I would recite the portion that did not compromise my secular beliefs. You say Christians and Jews impose their morality on you – I don’t care what you do or who you do it with – but stop trying to convert me to your brand of “normal”. My new motto for many progressives (notice I didn’t say “ALL”)”Don’t you DARE offend MEEEEEEEEE….but let MEEEEEE offend the hell out of you!!”
August 15th, 2005 at 6:10 pmAlexa, practice whatever you want but keep it out of my kids schools. You cannot undermine the Constitution so get over it.
If you don’t like it leave the country.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:05 pmAlexa, you can worhsip whatever, whoever you choose. Just don’t do it at my kids’ school. It would never fly at the office so why are the schools OK? This is not an assault on Christianity, this is a call for reasonablensss and adherence to the Constitution which calls for the separation of church and state. Don’t you see that these evangelicals who preach that they are discriminated against are self-aggrandizing false prophets, who would foist their beliefs and their interpretations of everything in society to their narrow viewpoint? This is the antithesis of the meaning of the Constitution. One more point, these guys are obsessed with sex – in or out of marriage, pornography, homosexuality, pregnancy, prescribed roles for sexes in society, and prostitution. They are a scary bunch of dominating, self-righteous, sanctimonious, sneering, snobs.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:18 pmI’m with Gore Vidal on that. Remove the tax exempt status on most of them.
F on F, SD Policy Council, FRC, CWA, and several other organizations of their ilk are simply collections of people motivated by greed and arrogance. Religion is simply in front. That’s one of the most common and effective misuses of religion throughout history. They are no different from Richard Mellon Scaife’s henchmen, they just make themselves look better. Religion is a powerful tool, and telling people that they are not real Christians, and will not save their eternal souls unless the follow a certain group or individual, is a marvelously strong motivational tool.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:27 pmShorter Alexa: Blah Blah Blah (Tired old talking points) Blah Blah Blah…. lather, rinse, repeat.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:29 pmNo one has the right to not be offended. We have a wall between church and state for a reason. Tax dollars are not going to promote any religion. Period. Not because I am against it, but because the founders wanted it that way.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:33 pmPost #10 is right — the separation of church and state is to protect churches from being taken over by the state. That’s freedom of religion. Religion is to be separated from state – and state is to be removed from religion.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:35 pmThe evangelicals who preach their distorted history of America based on Christanity and other out of context bible passages on Sundays are no different than the clerics in Islam that spue their antiamerican hate and teachings in the mosques every Friday.
August 15th, 2005 at 8:12 pmIt’s a blindingly obvious statement but, those Justice Sunday crackpots are nuckin’ futs.
August 15th, 2005 at 8:12 pmFundamentalism in any form is dangerous.
August 15th, 2005 at 8:13 pmI’d hate the law too if I was going down. I wonder how many parishoners in the audience were leaning over and whispering “Old Tom is guilty as sin.”
August 15th, 2005 at 9:15 pmAlexa, if I was a worshipper of Wicca could I demand that they teach it in school?
August 15th, 2005 at 9:25 pmThe question is, of course, whether the U.S. Constitution should be bastardized by fundamentalist thinking as dictated by one religion. It is not taxation or forcing someone to believe in one religion or another.
This is how the religious right operates. A discussion begins that calls them to the carpet for subverting BOTH church and state. It is really an indefensable position, so instead of debating the real point the debate is shifted to such finge arguements as taxation and freedom of religion.
The far-right wingers of the Republican party are masters at this. This is why Bush is still President, why Karl Rove still has a job and why the Patriot Act is still in force. The Swift Boat people worked it to a tee. Those that sold the Iraq war did so by shifting the discussion to 9/11, thus forgoing any requirement for proof that Iraq had a hand in our national tragedy.
Alexa and Tony are probably very fine people, good Americans and exactly who the Texas Gang is looking for to pick up the torch and shift the discussion.
I have watched all this before, when the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over and first became the tool of the ultra-right wing extremists.
Phil Mockel
August 15th, 2005 at 10:42 pmThe Kicking Donkey
http://www.thekickingdonkey
The word “stablize” is the new word of the day. That’s why we are in Iraq, to “stablize”.
Thats a fine cause for sure, but its the “unstablizing” Bushie did thats a crime.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:25 amOops “noble cause”.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:26 amPay your taxes or get the fvck out, freeloader.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
August 16th, 2005 at 3:50 amSchafly’s comments are interesting:
“How do the judges get away with such outrageous decisions? By asserting that Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land. But you know that is not true. That is a terrible heresy.â€
Hmmm. What does that say about the Supremes’ 2000 decision in favor of Bush? And all the legislation, executive orders, etc., the Illegitimate One signed off on in his first term?
It’s amazing how regularly the hypocritical rhetoric of Schafly and her ilk comes back to bite them on the butt.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:50 amPhyllis Schafly = Wingnut extraordinaire
August 16th, 2005 at 2:22 pmTony and Alexa…good job people! I’d jump in but I think it would be overkill. You have soundly reddened their pinko behinds.
To put this in perspective someone should post a transcript of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Q&A in 93. This woman is truly evil, the equivalent of a drunken KKK Grand Dragon of the Filthy Left and she still got a pass. I still haven’t figured out what the Conservatives got in return.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:26 pmThe term “separation of church and state” is un-Constitutional. No one can get around that. The government just can’t make a “State Church” like in England.
No one can prove that this is *not* a Christian nation or was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The people who *think* they have an argument can only quote 4 of the Founding Fathers’ Deist ideas. 4 people out of 55 in the US Constitutional Convention and signers of the Constitution, 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 52 members in the Continental Congress of 1774, and 84 in it in 1776. Minority to the max? I should think so.
Then the 59,028,111 who voted *against* Bush firmly believe that he (and the Religious Right) in no way represent their views on much including religion and religion in government. Yet those same people try and tell you that these 4 people represent the beliefs of the entire population of the Colonies. You think Jefferson represented the 691,737 people in Virginia? What double-speak!
And fyi: Jesus didn’t say it was impossible for the rich to enter heaven. Read the quote again. He said it was “hard.”
Is anyone who stands under religion a Fundamentalist? Again, a trick of the atheist, anarchist, far-left who currently vote Democrat. Yet they tell eveyone else not to group Al-Queda and the like with good God-fearing Muslims(profiling.) Yet the terrorists are the Fundamentalists. Again, what double-speak! I hear this non-sense from the Right as well. Do they think we’re all stupid lemmings who can’t look things up?
Then there’s the uninformed people who cry, “Keep it out of our schools.” How would they have fared more than 100 years ago when all the schools were actually church buildings that were also government buildings? Would they have minded that the Christian Bible was a part of the daily school life? I think it’s more like “put it back in” instead of “lets force in something new.”
September 21st, 2005 at 11:20 amAnd who do you think they mean when they say, “In God We Trust?” It ain’t Allah! Benjamin Franklin found some problems in Philly after a long time in Europe. He thought the Colonists should be more tolerant of other religions. He said nowhere that the Christian way of life and it’s icons should be eliminated just to keep from stepping on the toes of other people. He knew where the majority was. How many cry-babies speaking in the press (left and right) do?
Getting back to the article: We were taught in school that there is a “Check and Balance” system between the 3 pillars of the Federal government. Where is that? I agree with DeLay that Congress should be writing the laws and the Judicial enforcing them. It’s clear that there are a very few in the minority that can’t get what they want passed as law thru Congress. Why? Because this Republic is built on the majority rule. So now the cry-babies think they can sue and get the Supreme Court to over-step it’s bounds and write new legislature. *This* is un-Constitutioal and needs to be stopped.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:23 amIt is an intriguing thought that the Supreme Court should have to have a unanimous vote to overthrow any law passed by Congress. We don’t want to have someone getting into the Supreme Court and getting rid of women’s voting or something else for some personal reason. When it’s something that these anarchists hold dear, then you’ll hear the crying.