Monday, August 15, 2005

Justice Sunday II: This Time It's Personal

jus·tice n. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law; to treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation.

What was originally planned as a rally of support for Bush's Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts in the face of anticipated Democratic hostility ended up being an all-out assault on the judicial branch of our government.

Two things went wrong with the organizers' original vision: one, despite a lot of cautious concern on the part of Democrats regarding the nominee, aside from the idiots at NARAL, major organizations and individuals have largely refrained from rushing to judgment. Two, it turns out that the nominee once volunteered to advance the homosexual agenda by doing pro-bono work on the 1996 Romer v. Evans.

You see, Justice Sunday is not about partisanship, it's not about fairness, it's not about an out-of-control judiciary, and it's not really about religious freedom. It's about homophobia. And try as they might, they can't spin away the fact that Judge Roberts' personal ideology -- whatever that might be -- at least one time did not get in the way of his commitment to fair treatment of Americans under the law.

In their warped view of America and how its government should function, "justice" means gays have no rights and no public voice.

The reaction to the disclosure about Roberts' pro bono work was so toxic that at least one organization formally requested that Bush withdraw the nomination, and instead of rallying to support the nominee, they prayed for him. Specifically, "We pray for Judge Roberts that he would, in fact, be a justice who would honor the Constitution," intoned Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. Read that carefully. That's not an endorsement. That translates into, "Dear God, please let him be a narrow-minded tool like the rest of us."

You see, there's not a lot of room for dissent with these folks. There's no "agree to disagree." CNN reports that Senator Bill Frist, who got top billing for Justice Sunday I, "wasn't invited to address Justice Sunday II because he angered the events' organizers by voicing his support for expanded human embryonic stem cell research. "

"The goal of the rally was to educate evangelical Christians about the U.S. Supreme Court and get them talking to friends and elected officials about what they want from the justices," said Perkins.

If education was the goal, they fell a little ways short. "Activist justices -- we're trying to find out what we can do to stop that activity," said rally attendee Mike Miller. "Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments." Uhhh...? As I've written in the past, at best there are four commandments which can be said to be in common with American law. Someone get Mr. Miller a dictionary and help him understand the difference between democracy and theocracy. A history textbook might be useful, too.

"These activist, unelected judges believe they know better than the American people about the direction the country should go. The framers of our great nation did not intend for the courts to have absolute and final power over us," complained James Dobson. I guess it takes an unelected, unaccountable activist to know one.

We should be very worried: a group of Americans claiming to be defenders of "the framers of our great nation," who pray for judges who will "honor the Constitution," have set out to attack and paralyze one entire branch of the government those framers created.


Anonymous said...

Good post.

I think the Left has done an amazing job at moderating its more hysterical factions, for the most part. (I would've loved to hear the NARAL inner-court meeting that approved their advert. Really.) And, you're totally correct, this whole drama is exposing the Republicans' fatal flaw: they're a party of ideology-first, practicality and truth last.

If we continue to moderate our own emotions-vs-reason ideological factions, we can most certainly win back the House and maybe Senate in 2006. Maybe the Democrats need a good old Party purge. We might best drive these ideologues into the new, poltically marginal, but oh-so-equally emotional, Kingdom of Blogastan.

bohica said...

As a member of the FAR right for a long time I am saddened by what is going on with the evangelicals who can not understand that whether or not you agree, even vehemently, with how a person lives, it does not give you the right to force them to live the "right" way. Jesus did not force anyone to live by his example, he just loved. By the evangelicals own beliefs judgement lies in the hands of the Maker, not them. And as I have said before while I do not share your beliefs I will die defending your right to live how you wish to.

The politcal backlash of this type of behavior will be brutal. Unfortunatly, unike rob I believe the pendulum still has a long way to swing before it starts coming back towards the middle.

Andy said...

Bohica, you've totally tapped in to the odd, parallel universe that the evangelicals are living in. They claim gay marriage, for example, is being "forced" on them. I fail to see how their lives will change a whit. Meanwhile, they are pushing to legislate their own lifestyles as the official federal norm. It's bizarre. As the advice columnnist in Slate once wrote, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't send a gift."