Tuesday, November 29, 2005

When in doubt, post some old stuff from the archives

Here's a post from back in April. Kinda catchy, so I thought I'd repost it in lieu of any actual original content. It's good to be king.

Begin Old Crap:

I originally posted this in the comments section of my Rambling Flotsam and Jetsam post, wherein I had asked for some concrete evidence of the Bible-thumpin' Right's attempt to turn this country into a Christian theocracy by stacking the judiciary with rabid evangelicals hell-bent on rewriting every law on the books to conform to their own funamentalist ways.
Kel was nice enough to post several links. Unfortunately, they are mostly to The Nation, the Washington Post, and Maureen Dowd, whom I take about as seriously as Ann Coulter.

Anyway. Having finally coaxed kel into posting on my site, kind of like nursing a shy mole out of its burrow with bread crumbs, I don't want to turn around and whack 'er on the nose with the garden rake. So, I'm going to try to avoid any hint of shrillness or rabid incoherence. I hope.

So here goes.
Here's a comment from Jesse Jackson:
Will it remain a country where the freedom to practice religion is protected by law -- a law enforced by an independent judiciary?*
Is this the same independent judiciary that is requiring states to remove religious phrases from their state seals, upholds ACLU lawsuits against schools that provide rooms for after-school bible studies, and supports hate-crimes legislation for Christians who oppose homosexuality or abortions?

I guess my question is this: If it is a "right-wing assault on the courts" to nominate judges with more conservative tendencies, what was it then when Clinton nominated a slue of judges with a liberal bent? Was that a "left-wing assault on the courts?"
The lies are compounded by the arrogance of their claim to be vessels of God's will.*
Who is claiming this? Come on. One direct quote, that's is all I ask.
Religious groups and Democrats said Frist should have played no role in the heavily promoted broadcast which they say inappropriately brought religion into a political debate. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said the move, "Clearly argues that people of one viewpoint have God on their side and all others are faithless."*
The point I keep trying to make is that you can't paint yourself as defenders of religious freedom by opposing nominees because you don't agree with their personal beliefs! The Democrat Filibusterers are the ones making this a religious issue.

A judge's job is to make rulings in accordance with the actually existing law, not his or her personal opinions, faith-based or otherwise, as to what the law should be.*
You mean like Roe v. Wade? Someone site for me the "law" that supports that decision.

That Mohler believes that his faith is the true path to redemption is unexceptional. That he believes that any effort to stop judges who want to turn their faith into the law of the land is discriminatory and should be rectified by eliminating procedural restraints is exceptional.*
So, by implication, a Christian judge is not only incapable of being objective, but will without restraint and with great abandon seek to radically alter existing laws and judicial precendent based solely on his faith? Whereas an atheist judge would not. Got it. Should we maybe take a look at the last few rulings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Nearly half of Republicans surveyed in the poll were against any rule changes*
"Nearly half" is also "less than half," depending on how you chose to word it. That's called a "leading statistic," which is used farther down in the article to show how Bush is failing in the polls. Nope. No bias there. Also, here's an indepth analysis of the referenced polling sample on PowerLine.

And the way to do so is by reaching out to the rational Republicans in the Senate*
As opposed to the irrational ones?

And in my opinion, you don't do yourself any favors linking to Dowd. Her articles are usually rambling, misdirected screeds.

"...his [Bolton's] raging-bull temperament.."*
You mean when he put his hands on his hips and spoke sternly? Whew! What a firecracker!

"Who doesn't want to see Old Yeller chasing the Syrian ambassador down the hall, throwing a stapler at his head and biting at his ankles?"*
That is Dowd's definition of reasoned discourse.

"...after they torqued up intelligence to fit the White House's theological beliefs."*
Oh for the love of...
"'He (Bolton) spoke of the U.N. as being the enemy,' Vreeland added"*
And the problem is what? By what I've read, Vreeland MIGHT be qualified to speak, although he only served as ambassador for one year. Kind of unusual. Someone needs to be asking why Vreeland was only on the job for one year, and now, strangely enough, serves as Chairman of the Board for the "leading supplier of solar energy" in the country to which he was ambassor. Additionally, Vreelands "expertise" on the matter stems from working with Bolton 14 years ago. How does that speak to his CURRENT fitness for the job?

Anyway. The gist of this whole thing is that this is an ideological conflict between the agenda the Demos want to impose, and that which the Repubs are trying to maintain. This is not about the sanctity of the filibuster process, etc. The Democrats aren't opposing these nominees simply because they are influenced by their ideology, but because they are influenced by the "wrong" ideology, which the Dems KNOW stands a good change of coming into direct conflict with the humanist, progressive-socialist bill of goods(ideology) they are trying to peddle.

Can't have that. Then they might actually be called upon to justify some of the wacked out social programs they've managed to get on the books through their OWN judicial activism.


Darth Misha over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has a great post that says the same thing, only different. Great read.