Stringing the Beads
Ladies and Gentlemen, my light bulb just clicked on.Sometimes, working a puzzle can be frustrating. You have a clear idea of what your driving at, but can't find the right piece to pull two sections together or just to simply show you where you're headed. Blogging is the opposite. It's more like putting a puzzle together with all the pieces up side down, hoping it'll make sense when you flip it over. The whole story is rarely out there, especially when the story is a little stinky or when it's noisy subterfuge to cover quiet backroom tactics.
Sometimes, you just get lucky.
My intent was to blog about the conference "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith", a conference yielding gems like these:
[L]awyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Justice] 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.” -- Dana Milbank, Washington Post.
Stalin as an inspiration? Vieira stating that Kennedy's decision was based on principles drawn from foreign law and then quoting Stalin, a Soviet? Man, I could have a field day here. Then I started thinking about a couple of things. Cornyn, Frist, Delay, Cheney, Schiavo... and two other little things popped into focus: Bush, and the Constitutional Restoration Act.
CLICK. There goes my light bulb.
Let's string these beads, shall we?
HR 3799 and S 2082 are both introduced into the houses of Congress in March, 2004. The bill appears to make it illegal for higher courts to review cases by lower courts on decisions regarding things like allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted at court houses. Other parts of the bill provide for more sweeping control measures like banning judges from basing decisions on "international organizations" and "foreign states." If you were staring down the barrel of a potential illegal war, this sounds like a good way to avoid prosecution for war crimes or profiteering. Constitutional Restoration Act? More like Cover Your Backside Act.
According to C-SPAN, the plans for the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference began in February.
Terri Shiavo dies amid the whipping to a frenzy of the masses. I suspect Rove and company believed they could use Terri politically to boost HR 3799. Winning the Schiavo battle would make it difficult for any Rep or Senator to oppose a bill allowing the Ten Commandments into court houses, and all that extra stuff packed in the bill would just kick back and enjoy the ride into law. Why rock the boat if Dubya and the gang had won over public opinion based on the poignancy of Terri Shiavo's battle for life. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed after Bush hightailed it out of Texas to sign "the Terri law" and public support dwindled. The Whitehouse backed away from it.
Tom Delay comes out swinging March 31st against Federal judges, commenting that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
Sen. John Cornyn addressed the Senate on April 4th, claiming that violence against judges was a result of their wayward decision making rather than the fact that the people coming before them were short the perquisite number of bricks.
In an abrupt about face, on April 5th Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he thinks the judiciary is "fair and independent."
On Friday, April 8th, Vice President Dick Cheney told the New York Post he would have problems with punishing judges for their legal rulings.
Talk about an ugly necklace.
Why the back pedaling? It's clear the signal was given to back away from Delay. The average Joe is reading the news, and it's coming across that Delay is an arrogant, obsessed power maniac. All the big media has picked it up, and considering their normal docility towards the administration, it's hard not to be believe that they got the OK to run on Delay. (Sorry, journalists, but that's how I see it.)
It's possible Dubya didn't realize he had a mess here, but I'm quite certain Karl Rove did. Rove intended to USE the religious right to achieve his goal. If they got what they wanted and he got what he wanted, that's a beautiful thing. But, in Rove's world, the goal always has precedence over the means. If the thing with the religious right didn't work out, so be it.
This was NEVER about Terri Schiavo, NEVER about liberal judges, NEVER about judiciary decisions regarding abortion or gay marriage or even gay sex. NEVER.
The whole, complete and entire purpose of this 14 month fiasco was to redefine the role of the judiciary.
They are screwing with our Constitution, people.
Redefining the role of the judiciary and packing it with judges they feel they can control gives them the get out of jail free card they need, and carte blanc to conduct themselves unfettered. They justify their assault on the judicial power by scaring the religious right. They are MANIPULATING their base for their OWN purposes, not the goals of the religious right. The religious right wants specific decisions overturned. The administration wants to cement their power by destroying the third of it they can't control. Which, by the way, is precisely the role of the judiciary as defined in the Constitution. They ensure that laws are enacted and enforced within the bounds of the Constitution. They do not care and should not respond to the pressure or desires of a frenzied majority.
So, what's the game plan now? The reason they abandoned Delay was to keep us absorbed in his flame out and OFF HR 3799 and S 2082. This is the real baby, this is the one worth circling the wagons. Lots of protection, power and control are riding on this.
SO, as juicy a bit of road kill as Tom Delay may be, or as tempting as the conference "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" is, keep your eye on the prize. Talk about this Constitutional Restoration Act. Build it up and get it moving. We need this bill killed. If we don't, this bill will kill our Constitution.
This string of beads could hang us all.
posted by Jet @ 6:26 AM
12 Comments:
Brilliant as usual, Jet, and quite possibly the most frightening observation yet. Like those who had no remorse over killing their best friend over gold during the gold rush - one wonders at the lack of conscience in the minds behind the thinly veiled quest for a dictatorship on American soil.
Great post. This Constitutional Restoration Act is definitely something to keep an eye on. The Right's biggest complaint against the judicial branch is that they haven't found a way to purchase it. The executive and legislative branches are all bought and paid for, owned and operated by Big Business and rightwing pressure groups. They haven't been able to buy the judiciary yet, and they're determined to make an end run around them, whatever it takes.
You think that people would open their eyes to this stuff don't ya?
Nice work, Jet. It reminds me of the legislation hanging in the background somewhere that declares that all law derives from God.
These people have had the Constitution in their sites for some time -- weakening it if not making it entirely irrelevant. As Gore Vidal said recently, the institutions we thought were sacrosanct, aren't. Clearly, we have to protect them ourselves.
Great post, great weblog! This has always been one of my major complaints about the right wing leaders of today. I think it was at the 1992 GOP convention when Bush Sr. made his snotty comment about the three little letters the Democrats don't have... G-O-D. It was from that time on I decided once and for all that the GOP was being led by kookballs.
Yes, they are definitely toying with our Constitution. If the real, true rightwingers were to wake up, these "leaders" of ours would have their heads served to the public on platters.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jet, calm down. Remember that the Constitution is a living document (no pun intended Ms. Shiavo), so anytime Congress or the courts choose on whim to update it should be of no consequence to the "people".
snave and -e, great to see you here.
jd; In the 1930's Roosevelt was guilty of trying to do the same thing. Actually, he tried twice. The Senators who composed the Judiciary Committee's report reined him in, but at the time, this was a huge story. From the Supreme Court Historical Society http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c10_m.html :
The plan, the report said, revealed "the futility and absurdity of the devious." An effort "to punish the Justices" whose opinions were resented, the bill was "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country." If enacted, it would create a "vicious precedent which must necessarily undermine our system."
Without ever directly saying that Roosevelt was another Hitler, the report called attention to "the condition of the world abroad" and maintained that any attempt to impair the independence of the judiciary led ineluctably to autocratic dominance, "the very thing against which the American Colonies revolted, and to prevent which the Constitution was in every particular framed." Consequently, the report concluded, "[w]e recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle." In a final thundering sentence that, before the day was out, would be quoted in every newspaper in the land, the report ended: "It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."
I believe it was wrong then. It's just as wrong today.
Hello David, and welcome to God Dem.
I read Sen. Cornyn's entire floor speech. As is the norm for such, it's purpose is to state a given Senator's position, and attempt to persuade others to see his/her point of view. Sen. Cornyn's speech involved citing several cases he did not like and several he did that were overruled 15 - 20 years later. He specifically listed incidences that support his theory of foreign influence. He also surmised that the reason judges are attacked by defendants is based on the defendants disappointment in the judges succumbing to the undue influence of foreign courts rather than the more likely scenario that the defendants ire over being found guilty of their charges.
This post was not specifically about Sen. Cornyn. I saw his speech as part of a pattern rather than the focal point. This post was concerning HR 3799, which specifies the following:
HR 3799 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving governmental invocations of God in First Amendment cases.
HR 3799 would make it an impeachable offense for a judge to decide that HR 3799 violates the constitution. In other words, overturn the principle that the ultimate power to decide if laws violate the constitution resides with the judiciaries. If the true goal is to curb foreign influence, why the clause to impeach judges who rule on the constutionality of the bill? Obviously, if the bill IS constitutionally sound, this would never come up. Methinks something carries an odor here.
This bill, along with HR 3313 (Marriage Protection Act) and HR 2028 (Pledge Protection Act 2003) are unconstitutional because they violate separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the supremacy clause.
You mentioned that Cornyn was trying to make clear that the role of the Judiciary was to make ruling based on the laws written by representatives. The role of the Judiciary is to make rulings within the bounds of the Constitution. If the law legalizing abortion were overturned, I would be bound by that law. I'm not sure where your were going with that. The law is the law. I don't ignore them. I don't even drive fast.
Also, this is a nice place. Kind of a tea and crumpets place (if you know what I mean). ;-) I welcome your comments, but a softer tone would be greatly appreciated.
Jet, Your decorum and politesse are admirable!
I have to just throw you a quick compliment - I love reading you. Each time I do, I learn something new whether I agree with you or not (but I usually do). Thanks.
Wonderful and insightful post. I noticed that your right wing readers are expressing the view that the administration is marketing. They read the propaganda and spit it back.
Obviously the action of these people further empowers the radical right. They won't realize that they are the stooges of the radical right until the people have lost all their power.
Posts like this point out the details behind the smoke and mirrors of the radical right, but the un-Democratic action of these guys continues to market every plausible possibility accept the truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home