Stringing the Beads
April 14th, 2005 | by Jet Netwal |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.
Originally posted on April 10, 2005 on God Dem!
10 Responses to “Stringing the Beads”
By pia on Apr 14, 2005 | Reply
Great Jet. you explain what’s going on, so that almost anybody can understand.
By Jersey McJones on Apr 14, 2005 | Reply
Good piece. This brings to mind the Asbestos Liability Act of 2005. Early last week, the bill looked sure to pass and so investors were driving up the stock of companies with Asbestos liability. As the bill’s appeal wained later in the week, the stock market reflected just that. This is yet another example of why the Judiciary must be scrupulously detached from the private sector as well as the other Estates. The whole Tort “Reform” (”reform” always means Destroy with these guys) is a big part of this assault on the independenmt Judiciary.
By dhunley on Apr 15, 2005 | Reply
All,
This is one of the comments I made regardling “Stringing the Beads” over at God Dem…and Dr. Forbush…I’m still waiting…
Jet, to begin with…Senator Cornyn’s comments could hardly be called a “surmise”, he merely opined—however tenuously—that actions taken by certain judges might be reducing the respect normally accorded judges. It was a minute point, made with great effort to be clear he did not condone nor promote it or even issue it in a blanket way. To consider it a surmise is stretching it to say the least. The overriding message intended to illustrate the dangers of turning to foreign law for precedents in determining laws that affect American society; laws, I might add, that are chosen at personal whim on a case by case basis depending on how they view our society should “mature”.
I would hope you could see the danger in this. Your use of Stalin is a very good point on this matter. What if a particular group of Supreme Court judges felt they could turn to a foreign law to determine that a divorce could be obtained by announcing three times “I divorce you!’? What if it turned to a foreign law that denied the right to criticize the ruling government? Just because we personally like the laws being chosen to set precedent today, doesn’t mean we will like them tomorrow. I mean, how can you argue that our constitution shouldn’t be the sole document that guides our judges? It is more than a “theory” of foreign influence when the Supreme Court Justice actually state that they looked to international law for precedent. Although you say this post was not specifically about Cornyn…it was included as one of your pearls. So can we now dismiss it as one of those pearls? If not, why?
Choosing Edwin Vieira to make your point would be like someone choosing Ward Churchill to make their point that college campuses are filled with a bunch of America hating academics. We should be wary of anyone who uses this tactic.
Concerning HR 3799 and S 2082. You say “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.” (emphasis added). To me, it appears to allow state court houses to decide for themselves via elected official. The constitution doesn’t ban the right of a group of people to worship as you see fit…it merely bans the designation of an official religion. As long as those people are not violating someone else’s rights accorded under the constitution…no problem. The bills also appears to protect government officials from persecution for saying “all laws flow from God!”. It doesn’t require him to do so—he can say the god-of-the-berry bush if he wanted to; it merely allows him to…free speech and all that.
And this “The role of the Judiciary is to make rulings within the bounds of the Constitution.” Exactly…so why would we want to look to laws outside our constitution a la foreign law. Now can you see where I’m going?
H.R. 3313, although not mentioned in your original post, prevents an unelected judge in to strike down DOMA (which was approved by elected officials by a 342-67 House and 85-14 Senate margin) and forcing their definition of marriage onto every other state. Rather that upset the system of check and balance, it could be argued that it is actually an exercise of just that—the balance of power by judicial judges checked by the balance of those representated.
You made a lot of bold statements in your post, Jet, based solely on conjecture and your interpretation of events. While your decorum and politeness may be admirable, your (and how do I say this in a tea and crumpets setting?) logic is not.
By Jet on Apr 15, 2005 | Reply
Hi David;
I apologize for the delay is responding to your comment. I’ve tried for two days to put this up on God Dem, but Blogger wasn’t cooperating.
I think Cornyn inferred a conclusion, couched in caveats but inferred non the less, that violence against judges was a result of an increase in the citing of foreign courts. Frankly, I think this is not the case.
Societies do mature. We no longer put people in stocks or burn witches. Men hug their children and women are astronauts. This maturation is a positive thing. I do not think ignoring the rest of the world is the answer; I do not think blindly following the lead of other nations is good policy. I believe that our judiciary is capable of both ruling within the confines of the constitution and observing the world. These are not stupid people.
My post was not specifically about Cornyn, but you questioned that portion and I answered you in detail both here and in my previous comment. I dismissed no pearl.
If you put a bad item in a bill, even if it’s a great bill, that bad item becomes law just as surely as the rest of it. HR3799 overturns the principle that the ultimate power to decide if laws violate the constitution resides with the judiciaries. I think that is wrong. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”
Thank you for your comments.
By dhunley on Apr 16, 2005 | Reply
Jet…Thanks,
Cornny’s part wasn’t the only point I questioned. I think calling his remarks a conclusion is a stretch…simple as that. If we’re going to use such loose criteria for determining a “conclusion” we’d all be subject to whatever “conclusion” someone wanted to assign us.
About a society “maturing”…a mighty fluid term and open to endless interpretation at the whim of those making the interpretation. I imagine those Salem judges considered themselves mature. Whose to say our next wave of “maturation” won’t decide that it is mature to do away with the old, feeble, and helpless of society for the benefit—oh wait, we’ve just did that haven’t we? Killed a helpless person that is…and this time we didn’t even have to quibble over when “life” begins…all we had to do is determine that a life wasn’t worth living.
And the odd thing is, the constitution already allows for maturity…as in the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And of course ignoring the world is not good…never said it was for Heaven’s sake, what an extreme position to put me in (rather like the “conclusion” you assigned Cornyn).
And this…
I believe that our judiciary is capable of both ruling within the confines of the constitution and observing the world. These are not stupid people.
Ruling within the confines of the constitution and observing the world is two different things. What they might be doing is observing the constitution and ruling within the confines of the world.
You may have answered in detail…but you came no closer to proving your point. And you conveniently ignore a couple of facts that would break up that string of beads…facts like 3313 was approved by elected officials by a 342-67 House and 85-14 Senate margin. Yet you still assigned it a bead in the necklace constructed by this administration by which we will all be hung.
By sally on Apr 16, 2005 | Reply
dhunley, is the criteria for you met solely because 3313 was approved by elected officials by a 342-67 House and 85-14 Senate margin.?
By Jet on Apr 16, 2005 | Reply
David,
We cannot control successive generations. We can only raise the next one. We grow older and they have their crack at the world. This is how humankind has continued on the earth. This is the pattern of maturation. If we do our jobs as parents, they’ll be fine. Do you really believe that “our next wave of “maturation” won’t decide that it is mature to do away with the old, feeble, and helpless of society”? I don’t. Terri Schiavo’s husband cared enough about their marriage to stand up for her wishes. Florida DCF is releasing a report debunking some of the hysteria and mis-truths regarding her care. The bible calls on us to leave our parents and cleave to our spouse. As her husband, Michael would know her heart. I respect that. My husband knows my heart. He is whom I trust to ensure my wishes are carried out.
What I said was that I do not think ignoring the rest of the world is the answer. I did not imply you said that. No offense intended.
Actually, on the original post, I did not assign a bead to HR3313. I just said in a later comment I thought it was a bad bill. That’s my opinion. Different from yours, obviously, but the one I hold.
Thanks for commenting.
By dhunley on Apr 18, 2005 | Reply
Jet,
About this…
Do you really believe that “our next wave of “maturation” won’t decide that it is mature to do away with the old, feeble, and helpless of society”? I don’t.
I do…I really do. For evidence, I present:
Peter Singer of Princeton argues that unless an organism is self-aware over time, the entity in question is a non-person.
British academic John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England, has defined a person as “a creature capable of valuing its own existence.” Harris wrote explicitly that killing human non-persons would be fine because “Non-persons or potential persons cannot be wronged” by being killed “because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed.”
Bioethicist big-wig Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University has suggested that “because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they…might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs.”
Wesley Smith: “Bill (Florida bioethicist Bill Allen), do you think Terri is a person?”
Bill Allen: “No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood. Even minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood, but I don’t think complete absence of awareness does.”
So who are the so-called human non-persons? All embryos and fetuses, to be sure. But many bioethicists also categorize newborn infants as human non-persons (although some bioethicists refer to healthy newborns as “potential persons”.
And Jet, these are not “nuts” we’re talking about…but intelligent people in respected positions. Once you’ve accepted the sight of a baby’s severed head dangling from a set of forceps…it isn’t a stretch at all. What do you think? I know you’re busy…I’m trying to keep up myself…but I’d really like to know what you think. (Sally…you to)
I’m happy that you have a good, communicative marriage…but what leads you to believe that this was the case for the Schiavo’s? Doesn’t it sound the least bit suspicious…not know nothing else even, not the conditions of the initial diagnosis, not the stated beliefs of the person conducting the diagnosis, not the lawyer’s activities, and even overlooking the 5th amendment…that the husband “remembered” a conversation during a T.V. program about seven years after the fact…despite numerous opportunities to do so before?
Sally…no, I’m not basing my argument solely on the vote in the House and Senate on those bills (haven’t I presented other evidence?)…but doesn’t it at least cast a little doubt onto the conclusion that it was a Rove/Bush conspiracy?
By Jet on Apr 19, 2005 | Reply
David;
I do think each generation will succeed. The next generation is the one I’m raising so I have a stake in its outcome. Precisely why I pay attention to my government.
I am not afraid of the opinions of people, even when I don’t agree with them. One opinion cannot change the outcome of a nation with as many free voices in it as ours. I respect that you vehemently disagree with the people you cited. I also consider the first amendment right you are exercising to be sacrosanct. These two things, freely voiced opinions and disagreement, as a staple to maturation.
I am also not afraid of viscerally troublesome imagery when I feel it is being used as a tool to manipulate opinion.
Gossip and innuendo regarding the Schiavo’s has made it impossible to accurately know the caliber of their marriage. My opinion is that as her husband he would know, better than anyone, her wishes. It is certainly not knowledge I or you could possibly possess.
By dhunley on Apr 20, 2005 | Reply
Jet,
I do not fear opinions either. In fact, I very much enjoy hearing the opinions of other people…especially when they differ from my own—that’s part of the reason I come here. But when these “opinions” are the basis for allowing a human being to starve to death, that’s another thing altogether.
You acknowledge that “Gossip and innuendo regarding the Schiavo’s has made it impossible to accurately know the caliber of their marriage.”
and that it is your opinion that
“her husband he would know, better than anyone, her wishes. It is certainly not knowledge I or you could possibly possess.” is my point precisely. My opinion is that it would have been better to err the other way–and there is much more evidence, not all of it gossip, to support my opinion.
It is curious that someone who can discern “beads” out of much, much less evidence AND that also entails the hijacking of both the House and the Senate (who, by the way, consist of members that freely act to thwart other bills they don’t approve) by a couple of men
AND that requires ignoring contrary evidence
AND taking one man’s “opinion” to the extreme
and construct those beads into a hanging necklace…yet will blithely accept a position that ends in the death of a human, admitting all the while that it occurred based “not knowledge I or you could possibly possess.”
What could you make out of those beads if you were of a different opinion? I could construct that someone wanted their opinions acted on while not allowing MY opinions to be acted on. No, I don’t fear opinions…if fear allowing opinions to be the basis of action.
I am also “not afraid of viscerally troublesome imagery when I feel it is being used as a tool to manipulate opinion.” However, I am afraid when opinion has been manipulated to the point that that “viscerally troublesome imagery” is an accurate description of what is occurring. It shouldn’t be troublesome at all if that baby were akin to “cancer” (as someone in here suggested) that could/should be removed at will.
Your position is shot full of self-admitted contradictions; yet you still endorse what happened to Terri Schiavo.