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.