"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Monday, August 29, 2005

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts: The Left’s Campaign of Lies and Distortion Knows No Shame

Will Malven
8/29/2005

It is astounding how twisted the Left’s thinking has become. I’m not even sure that they are aware how distorted their view of the world is.

This morning Barry Lynn (Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church & State ) was on C-Span with Jay Sekulow (Amer. Ctr. for Law & Justice, Chief Counsel). The topic under discussion was the nomination of Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Barry Lynn spent the entire morning distorting the history of the Supreme Court and of John Roberts.

His opening salvo was stating the possibility that a Justice John Roberts might vote to reverse the past thirty-five years of Supreme Court Rulings (actually Barry, with any luck the figure is closer to forty-five years).

First I have to ask, “This is bad?” Since its creation, there has never been a more activist period for the Court. This is the period in which the Court “discovered” a previously unknown right to privacy in the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” [Griswold v. Connecticut] to justify the murder of unborn children. This is the period during which the court mounted a continual all out assault against the “free exercise” of religion clause of the First Amendment, severely curtailed the rights “to keep and bear arms” guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, ruled that racial discrimination was permissible as long as it was in pursuit of the goal of non-discrimination (Huh?) [affirmative action, title IX, etc.] From Lynn’s organization website:

(Quotations from “Paper Trail On Court Nominee Roberts Grows More Troubling, Says Americans United [Link])
“In a 1985 memo, Roberts railed against a U.S. Supreme Court decision that year that invalidated an Alabama moment-of-silence law, saying it “seems indefensible.”
This should read:

In a 1985 memo, Roberts, as a private lawyer spoke against a U.S. Supreme Court decision... [Robert’s was responding as lawyer on a case, not as a judge in a ruling. Also “railed” is a clearly inflammatory and incorrect description. “Seems indefensible” sounds a bit more equivocal than I would expect railing to be.]
“This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to erode the First Amendment principle of church-state separation,”
This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to strengthen the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. [There is no “principle of church-state separation” in the constitution.]

On this particular issue, I have to ask my Liberal friends the following:

People of my (and Reverend Lynn’s) generation all went to schools in which there was not only moments of silence, but actual teacher led prayers in classes.

Where are all of the people who were irrevocably damaged by this process? Where are all of the little Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist kids whose lives were destroyed by this? How many of my fellow classmates were so traumatized by being forced to recite or listen to the rest of us recite prayers that they had nervous breakdowns or changed their religious affiliation. How many little atheists suffered “brain-lock” and became failures in life due to our school sanctioned prayers? I’m not talking about some nebulous “possible” damage or feelings of being outcast or an outsider, I’m asking for genuine verifiable damage.

Show me the horrors of majority rules in these cases. Who was hurt? Names, case numbers, documentation please. These are the kinds of questions Liberals hate. The ACLU and the PFAW run and hide from these questions. The problem is, they can’t provide any of that. That is the problem with most of the Left’s fear mongering; it’s all based on anecdotal non-evidence. One hears a lot about “someone I know of,” or “they reported,” or “I heard,” or my personal favorite, “studies have shown,” but one never hears any real substantiation of these charges.

I am an American, I was born and raised here, and this culture is a Judeo-Christian, Western European, culture. I don’t care about your “hurt feelings,” I only care about actual verifiable damage. I don’t wish to hurt anyone, but injured feelings are not actual injuries. Feeling “bad” is not justification for the oppression of the Majority by a Minority of Citizens. If your feelings get hurt, grow up and get over it. The world is full of disappointment, get used to it.

The Constitution does not guarantee your rights against getting your feelings hurt. It does guarantee your rights against actual injury. So having established that there are no special hospital wards for victims of forced praying, I have to ask “What’s wrong with prayer in school?”

More Barry Lynn Lies:

(Quotations taken from Senate Should Reject Confirmation Of John G. Roberts To Supreme Court, Says Americans United [Link])
“John Roberts has long been a faithful soldier in the right wing’s war on the Bill of Rights, he does not support personal liberties and should not receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.”
Err...what war is that Barry? You mean he’s trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights? Oh yeah, that’s you Liberals doing that. You mean he’s trying to prevent us from freely expressing our religion...No actually that’s you Liberals too. Hmm...Maybe he’s going to take away our 5th Amendment right protecting our private property from seizure for public use without due process of law. Oops, Liberal justices again. Hey Barry, it looks to me like you guys are the ones bent on taking away our basic liberties. It has been the Left that has been at war with our Bill of Rights, not the Right.
“Lynn noted that Roberts, as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush White House, drafted a key legal brief urging the Supreme Court to scrap decades of settled church-state law and uphold school-sponsored prayer at public school graduation ceremonies and other forms of government-endorsed religion.”
Uh...Barry, weren’t those “decades of settled church-state law” put into place by “scrap[ping]” a century and a half “of settled church-state law?” Your hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems. There was no “separation of church and state” until Justice Hugo Black suddenly decided that the Danbury Letter was equivalent in law to the constitution in Everson v. Board of Education 1947.
“Roberts will work to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state and open the door to majority rule on religious matters,”
Not to be repetitive Barry, but there is no wall of separation between church and state to be dismantled. Oh, and Heaven forefend that the majority ever get its way on matters of state, whether religious or otherwise...Err...isn’t this nation a Democratic Republic? Doesn’t that mean that the majority does rule?
“Roberts’ judicial demeanor and the technical quality of his writings are not at issue, nor is his pleasant personality. An understanding and concern for religious minorities and fundamental civil and human rights is what is missing from his record of government service. Just because a candidate is well liked does not make him qualified to serve on a tribunal that is often the last great protector of the rights of the people.”
Sorry Barry, “judicial demeanor and...technical quality” are the only issues that should be at stake. “An understanding and concern for religious minorities and fundamental civil and human rights” are not requirements for a Supreme Court Justice.

I submit that an understanding and concern for the meaning and integrity of our Constitution, and an ability to render verdict in a dispassionate and objective manner are requirements for a Supreme Court Justice.

Judicial Activism Defined:

Conservatives and most Republicans define judicial activism as the act of creating law from the bench. It usually entails an “activist judge” putting his own desire for what he believes the law should say in place of a judicious attempt at interpretation of what the law actually says. It is legislation by judicial fiat.

Liberals and Democrats define judicial activism as any attempt be a judge to reverse the excesses of activist (by Conservative definition) judges and to reinstate the law as it was written. Thus any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade or Griswald v. Connecticut, or Everson v. Board of Education, or Dred Scott v. Sanford, is seen by Liberals as judicial activism. So tell me Barry, was Lincoln wrong? Do you believe that Dred Scott v. Sanford still be in effect? Do you believe in slavery?

Of course he doesn’t, he is just being selective in his definition of judicial activism and who may or may not indulge in it:

Liberal activism rules:
  • Liberal judicial activism-Good.
  • Conservative originalism-Bad
We understand Reverend, it’s hard to be consistent and Liberal. It’s also hard to be honest and Liberal isn’t it?

No comments:

Post a Comment