Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

In Contempt of Courts

By Max Blumenthal, The Nation. Posted April 12, 2005.


A conference featuring Rep. Tom DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes and other religious extremists demands that judges acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law."
Advertisement

Michael Schwartz must have thought I was just another attendee of the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference. I approached the chief of staff of Oklahoma's GOP Sen. Tom Coburn outside the conference in downtown Washington last Thursday afternoon after he spoke there. Before I could introduce myself, he turned to me and another observer with a crooked smile and exclaimed, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

For two days, on April 7 and 8, conservative activists and top GOP staffers summoned the raw rage of the Christian right following the Terri Schiavo affair, and likened judges to communists, terrorists and murderers. The remedies they suggested for what they termed "judicial tyranny" ranged from the mass impeachment of judges to their physical elimination.

The speakers included embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay, conservative matriarch Phyllis Schlafly and failed Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Like a performance artist, Keyes riled the crowd up, mixing animadversions on constitutional law with sudden, stentorian salvos against judges. "Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was the focus of evil during the cold war. I believe that the judiciary is the focus of evil in our society today," Keyes declared, slapping the lectern for emphasis.

At a banquet the previous evening, the Constitution Party's 2004 presidential candidate, Michael Peroutka, called the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube "an act of terror in broad daylight aided and abetted by the police under the authority of the governor." Red-faced and sweating profusely, Peroutka added, "This was the very definition of state-sponsored terror." Edwin Vieira, a lawyer and author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, went even further, suggesting during a panel discussion that Joseph Stalin offered the best method for reining in the Supreme Court. "He had a slogan," Vieira said, "and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'"

The complete Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."

The threatening tenor of the conference speakers was a calculated tactic. As Gary Cass, the director of Rev. D. James Kennedy's lobbying front, the Center for Reclaiming America, explained, they are arousing the anger of their base in order to harness it politically. The rising tide of threats against judges "is understandable," Cass told me, "but we have to take the opportunity to channel that into a constitutional solution."

Cass' "solution" is the "Constitution Restoration Act," a bill relentlessly promoted during the conference that authorizes Congress to impeach judges who fail to abide by "the standard of good behavior" required by the Constitution. If they refuse to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment. In essence, the bill would turn judges' gavels into mere instruments of "The Hammer," Tom DeLay, and Christian-right cadres.

Conference speakers framed the Constitution Restoration Act in pseudo-populist terms--the only means of controlling a branch of government hijacked by a haughty liberal aristocracy against the will of the American people. As Michael Schwartz remarked during a panel discussion, "The Supreme Court says we have the right to kill babies and the right to commit buggery. They say the people have no right to express themselves, that the people have no right to make laws. Until we have a court that reflects a majority," Schwartz continued, his voice rising steadily, "it is a sick and sad joke that we have a Constitution here."


Digg!

Max Blumenthal is a freelance journalist based in Los Angeles. Read his blog at maxblumenthal.blogspot.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Big Three
Posted by: bookwoman on Apr 13, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So here we have a legislator whose motto is "Whatever it takes", A hasbeen activist who used unisex toilets to defeat the ERA at a time when anyone who flew in an airplane was already using unisex toilets, and a politician who threw his own flesh and blood out the door because she admitted to being a lesbian. I would really like these three as spokepeople for something I believe in. Wow, talk about lowering the level of the conversation. Oh, and once again, someone explain to me what an activist judge is - ?someone who interprets the law according to hisher beliefs and philosophies and not according to precedent?. Yup, got it!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faith and Belief
Posted by: 42Years on Apr 13, 2005 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My faith in mankind is shaken to the core and I stand in disbelief at what man is capable of doing in the name of religion. Whatever God you believe in, he or she must be shedding tears over the terrible wrongs we have committed. How sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Mainstream"
Posted by: Bluetakboy on Apr 13, 2005 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is scary is these people have managed to convince americans they are "mainstream" and represent "mainstream american values".

The progressive movement's biggest failing has been our inability to expose these people as the fringe-dwellers they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Mainstream" Posted by: windy
Remember that poll during Reagan's Term?
Posted by: owlbear1 on Apr 13, 2005 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one that asked if Congress should be abolished so it would Stop bothering Ronnie?


I think it was in '86. Around 30% of people polled thought it was a great idea.

Sad to say but it really looks like we get the government we deserve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deborah
Posted by: Deborah on Apr 13, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A dangerous bill has been presented to the Senate as of March 3, 2005: Senate bill S 520 mistakenly called the Constitution Restoration Act.

Sample:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.


Has Tom DeLay made good on his promise of getting revenge? What do you think about this bill?

LINK

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deborah Posted by: Deborah
» lrider30 Posted by: lrider30
Deborah
Posted by: Deborah on Apr 13, 2005 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Sorry, but I am not very good on posting links. Hope that this one helps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jackie T
Posted by: JackieT on Apr 13, 2005 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Tom Delay will then present proof that there IS a God, and that the Bible was indeed written by this God, then I will take him seriously.

Jackie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lrider30
Posted by: lrider30 on Apr 13, 2005 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I believe in him but------MY GOD!!! If the judges had ruled the way the religious wrong wanted, we'd be in serious danger of losing the right to control our lives. Well, we already are but this would exacerbate the horror.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

joe
Posted by: joedangelo on Apr 13, 2005 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is so busy Entertaining the pope that s(he) Forgot, Once Again, to Exercise Divine Intervention...Four Children Killed in Baghdad Explosion! -j.d. 2005

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Laws?
Posted by: evangel1 on Apr 13, 2005 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As something of a student of Scripture, I wonder WHICH Biblical Laws these folk would foist upon us? If I read my Gospel aright, which these "Christians" evidently have failed, or forgotten, to do, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, spoke against the harshness and cruelty of Old Testament laws, one of which allowed a parent (father) to haul a disobedient child out and stone him/her.
Working on the Sabbath was a stoning offense, and work is very narrowly defined. There goes Wal-Mart (at last)!
Jesus even took issue with such lack of self-control as temper-tantrums. Remember that line about saying, "Thou fool" to a fellow? You are in danger of the judgment!
The Epistle of James, too, compells control of our tongue, which he calls an unbridled horse. A faithful Christian needs to be careful of his speech. One can do terrible injury with words. What was it Dick Cheney said to Sen. Leahy?
Jesus urges us to control our anger, our lusts, our greed. He is ever concerned that we err on the side of mercy and compassion, though we must never back-down when speaking Truth to power! Jesus gives us the example. Our task, as Christians, is to follow Him.
OH, yes, by the way, the punishment for adultery, too, was stoning. How many in Congress might come perilously near this penalty for their shameless wielding of their power to practice their lusts? They may want to take another, closer look at the Old Testament vs. the New Testament considerations.
So I ask again, WHICH Biblical laws would these extremists have us adhere to, codify and implement in our civil code? Seems to me the Old Testament laws are not only brutal and harsh, but smack of a day's outing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a bright spot for human rights, tolerance and kindness!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which Laws? Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Which Laws? Posted by: Ewmatt
» RE: Which Laws? Posted by: Lathor
» RE: Which Laws? Posted by: Chiron
Altreader
Posted by: Altreader on Apr 14, 2005 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These extremists present themselves as patriots and possessed of such superior intelligence that they know the mind of "god" and are qualified to impose their beliefs on all of us. So how could it be that they seem to have never read Article VI, third paragraph, of the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows:


"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

PLEASE NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE. This bill that would destroy freedom would appear to be unconstitutional right out of the chute. Could these hatemongers perhaps be so ignorant as to believe they can nullify a provision of the Constitution with a bill spelling out a tirade against all who disagree with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hunting the Radicals
Posted by: hunter on Apr 15, 2005 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if it is open season on judges, is it open season on activist churches, pastors, politicians and legislatures who would subvert our constitution with their ideology?

Turn about is fair play! Thank god for the NRA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fella852003
Posted by: fella852003 on Apr 25, 2005 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people don't care about America, they care about their own power and money, period. I think it's a mistake to assume that their zealotry won't sell to ordinary people. These power grubbing, greedy maniacs have become masterful at playing the dual role of stirring up their base, to whom their Mussolini-like diatribes appeal, then repackaging their complaints in softer, more palatable language that appeals to the average folk who keep putting them in office. Ever heard of Frank Luntz? The only thing that will topple them is to demonstrate how corrupt they are. Gibb's lies about Schiavo's being suffocated into a persistent vegetative state (although before he and his posse had been arguing she wasn't in a pvs) and the willingness for these people to undermine our system of government so they can kill the judiciary and spoon feed court decisions that favor corporate lobbyists, it's all about money, in the end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]