Conservative Activists rally against Judges

[Epitome22]

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that 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." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

A court spokeswoman declined to comment.

This is getting out of hand. First we had Tom DeLay giving a quasi-threat to the judiciary saying they would have to "answer for their behavior." before being rebuked by Dick Cheney Then John Cornyn offered to "explain" the causes behind violent attacks on the judiciary, blaming it on "activist judges." Again, to his "credit," he later backpeddled from what might have been seen as tacit encouragement of violence. Then a group of extremist GOP Senators introduced a bill that would essentially destroy the independent judiciary. A spokesperson for James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) claimed that "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary". But nobody has explicitly called for violent assaults against the court system. Until now.

Right Wingers quoting Stalin? These extremists are quickly becoming the norm in the Republican party.

[capitalcity]

Look Epitome, We NEED more problem solvers and quick thinkers like old Joe.

P.S. You better pipe down or it'll be off to the Gulag with your ass.

[Smiles]

I hope Vieira's decision to quote Stalin was stupid, rather than calculated. It would be foolish of him to use half of Stalin's original statement, and then expect that some types of people would not take that as an implicit endorsement of the entire quote. I dearly hope it was a stupid choice, and if that is so, then we need to examine whether we want to allow him such high profile speaking opportunities again. I am inclined to hope (at this point) that Mike Farris and Phyllis Schlaffly cut Vieira loose. He is a liablity to their agenda.

So Vieira decried Kennedy's use of Marxist, Leninist principles, yet he appears to endorse one of Stalin's principles as a means to stop Kennedy? Am I reading this correctly? Is the anti-sodomy statue the only "proof" given of these "Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law"??

Has Mike Farris ever specifially indicated what "international norms" were cited in Kennedy's opinions? Forgive me, but I'm not following his line of thought here (probably because I haven't kept up with the issues well).

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Did she qualify how she would want to remove the courts power to review the Boy Scouts? Was this a blanket statement to make the Boy Scout 100% exempt from judicial review, or was she refering to a specific (and possibly religious) policy held by the Boy Scouts? They might want to be careful about removing the courts' power to review religious displays. What would they do if satanic displays are set up? I'm not endorsing the removal of the 10 Commandments, but I'm curious as to how all of these ideas will be written into proposed legislation.

I am appalled at my lack of understanding and education on these issues and individuals. I've revealed my narrow understanding and opinions in this post, and I hope that it is clear that I am open to further discussion that will help me formulate more accurate positions on the issues referred to in the above paragraphs.

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected."

This was pretty funny to read, and kind of changes my perception of Mike Farris. It's almost like he's saying that helping someone get elected (campaigning for, endorsing, funding) entitles you to set their agenda and tell them how to legislate - without having to lobby them "along side" the opposing lobbyist. (Again, am I reading this correctly???)

A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

I agree that this country would operate quite differently if we were better-educated on these issues. I'm not so sure of what I think about the rest of that statement.

...a group of extremist GOP Senators introduced a bill that would essentially destroy the independent judiciary. A spokesperson for James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) claimed that "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary"

Does anyone who which Senators are calling for destroying the independent judiciary? Why haven't more of us heard about this? Are they just trying to make sure all the checks and balances we need are in place....?

Just my currently very uneducated (on the issues) and unaware (of current events) $0.02.

[Mavdog]

The bottom line with Schlaffy and those who follow her lead is they want freedom of speech...as long as it's speech which they approve of. She and her Eagle Forum cohorts are shooting for a Joe McCarthy redux.

The most telling statement of all is this gem from Ms. Schlaffy: "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

uh, yes Phyliss, if you were to read up on the US Constitution that is part of what the SCOUS does. They protect us from people like you who want to pervert and deny the freedoms granted in that document.

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The bottom line with Schlaffy and those who follow her lead is they want freedom of speech...as long as it's speech which they approve of. She and her Eagle Forum cohorts are shooting for a Joe McCarthy redux.

The most telling statement of all is this gem from Ms. Schlaffy: "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

uh, yes Phyliss, if you were to read up on the US Constitution that is part of what the SCOUS does. They protect us from people like you who want to pervert and deny the freedoms granted in that document.

Mavdog, I think there seem to be two interpretations of Phyliss' quote:

Option #1: The Constitution isn't supposed to be interpreted by the Supreme court, or
Option #2: The Supreme Court isn't interpreting the Constitution according to the way the founding fathers' intentions....

Option #1 seems to be your interpretation, and I would like to ask you to consider another possibility: My interpretation is #2. I was raised in this right wing conservative culture, and I know they aren't ignorant of what the constitution explicitly states. I also know that they believe our founding fathers intended for our country to head in a very different direction when it comes to separation of church and state. Therefore, I am fairly confident that she was restating (for the millionth time) that the Supreme Court is mis-interpreting the Constituiton (in her opinion).

Disclaimor: This post is not intended to be an endorsement of Phyliss Schlaffly's statements or opinions. I'm just trying to clear up a possible misconception. I think we all learn, grow and find areas of agreement/compromise when we are fully aware of our "opponents" true beliefs.

Thank you for indulging me by reading this far-from-genious response. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

You might be correct Smiles, Schlaffly should know that the SC does interpert the Constitution, although I find Option 2 to equally uninformed should that be her meaning.

The author of the Amendment, Madison, was vocal about the US Govenment not providing <u>any</u> support for<u> any</u> religious ideology. The rulings by the Court follow that principle, a principle which was as valid in the 18th century as it is today.

She's just plain wrong, period.