The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration (or, come warm yourself by the glow of the Christian-right meltdown)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Now crossing the line from sort of terrifying to mostly hilarious:

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Justice Anthony] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 10 April 2005 05:50 (twenty years ago)

One thing that annoyed me in November was all the moderate-media liberals and "fiscal conservatives" rushing to assure everybody that no, haha, the Republican Party hadn't been commandeered by snake-handling End-of-Days Christ-on-a-stallion wackos. There was a lot of tut-tutting and invocations of alarmism if anyone said "theocrats". But nobody told the wackos. Now they're up in Washington and running riot across the cable networks like plague rats with clip-on mics and nobody knows how to get rid of 'em. (David Brooks, who wrote a few columns back then assuring us that all those "values voters" were really just people like you and me except they love their kids more, is now gently trying to put on the brakes. Someone should tell him it's hard to hear his throat-clearing over all those burning witches.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 10 April 2005 06:01 (twenty years ago)

"The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is,"

that is the most terrifying line in the piece. The attack on the judiciary in the US is the most terrifying thing to have been unleashed by the Conservatives over there. Not satisfied with legislating for their reactionary programme, they want the supposedly independent judiciary to bend to their narrow interpretation of the law or be attacked, either on the level of reputation or in the extreme, physically.

hmm what you call 'fiscal conservatives' I call economic Liberals; robber barons if you will.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 10 April 2005 06:06 (twenty years ago)

It's pretty freaky, yeah, but they're going to run into an interesting conundrum: Because we've had Republican presidents for 16 out of the last 25 years, there are an awful lot of Republican judges on the federal bench. And the Judeo-Christian Council crowd has made it clear that Republican judges (like Kennedy) are in their sights. I don't expect the federal judiciary, Dems or Repubs, to take kindly to that talk. (I also don't think it would play very well politically with the 70-80 percent of voters who aren't crazy right-wingers.) Really, it's a pretty strange and self-defeating fight to pick right out the gate. Sort of like Bush's Social Security push. All this momentum, all this power, and they squander it on fights they can't win.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 10 April 2005 06:35 (twenty years ago)

(16 of the last 24 years, I meant)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 10 April 2005 06:36 (twenty years ago)

For all the talk amongst senators and judicial nominees that they don't support litmus tests or single issue vetos/approvals, nominees are often asked what they think of Marbury vs. Madison and so they should be.

M. White (Miguelito), Sunday, 10 April 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

this edmund vieira character STILL has a license to practice law ANYWHERE? shit, if anything should warrant disbarment i would think that threatening the life of a judge should be it.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 10 April 2005 17:12 (twenty years ago)

Blood in the Water...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050410/ap_on_go_co/delay

Santorum: DeLay Needs to Answer Questions

1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Politics - U. S. Congress

WASHINGTON - The No. 3 Republican in the Senate said Sunday that embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay needs to answer questions about his ethics and "let the people then judge for themselves."

Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record)'s comments seem to reflect the nervousness among congressional Republicans about the fallout from the increased scrutiny into DeLay's way of doing business.

DeLay, R-Texas, has been dogged in recent months by reports of possible ethics violations. There have been questions about his overseas travel, campaign payments to family members and his connections to lobbyists who are under investigation.

"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," said Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference....

hee hee. of course, we should let the people decide, therefore we won't need the House Ethics subcommittee at all! makes perfect sense!

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Sunday, 10 April 2005 17:22 (twenty years ago)

full article, just 'coz it's all worthwhile to read:
And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

A court spokeswoman declined to comment.


kingfish, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 19:57 (twenty years ago)

also, in response to the well-justified criticism, the head guy for the group ran this in today's USA Today:
Judges step out of bounds

Tue Apr 12, 6:21 AM ET

By Rick Scarborough

Last week, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration held a conference, "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," which proposed bold but overdue reforms.

Some have accused us of being sore losers and attacking judges because we're unhappy with the outcome of specific cases, such as the starving death of Terri Schiavo. This is both inaccurate and unfair.

We are defending the Constitution and liberty. By regularly exceeding their constitutional authority - in effect, legislating from the bench - liberal judges are destroying representative government.

An amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. But the Supreme Court has taken to routinely "amending" the Constitution to suit the whims of a shifting majority of justices, often with dire consequences.

The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress. Yet, under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, judges have:

• Created out of thin air an unlimited right to abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

• Outlawed religious expression in public schools and required removal of the Ten Commandments from public places.

• Tried to take "one nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

• Struck down Texas' sodomy law, causing Justice Antonin Scalia to note that the court "has taken sides in the culture war."

• Attempted to redefine marriage over the protests of the American people.

And now, Supreme Court justices are undermining our sovereignty by turning to foreign law for precedents in deciding whether minors can be subject to the death penalty.

In the face of this unprecedented assault on morality, democracy and constitutional separation of powers, we are proposing certain remedies - including impeachment and the withdrawal of jurisdiction to hear certain cases. All are constitutional.

In an 1820 letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote that judges "seem to see (themselves) as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under an oligarchy." Was Jefferson attacking an independent judiciary, as some now accuse Rep. Tom DeLay (news, bio, voting record) and Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) of doing?

An independent judiciary does not mean an unaccountable judiciary.

Rick Scarborough is acting chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration


kingfish, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 20:02 (twenty years ago)

and the conservative Heritage Foundation is putting out stuff like this:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/hl871.cfm

kingfish, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.