PDA

View Full Version : 'No Man, No Problem': Highlights of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny"




mactastic
Apr 11, 2005, 03:34 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html)
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.

And the overreaching of authority continues...



zimv20
Apr 11, 2005, 04:02 PM
there are two things which i'm surprised i've not seen in my lifetime:
1. a sniper, on game day, taking out the star player of a rival sports team
2. the assassination of a supreme court justice

in other news, what does it say about how far right the GOP has strayed when they're talking about removing a reagan appointee?

pseudobrit
Apr 11, 2005, 04:38 PM
2. the assassination of a supreme court justice

The neocons are trying for a bloodless revolution (unless you count foreign wars). If they see themselves as fading/faltering, you can be assured things'll get ugly and violent.

As it is, they're getting their way thanks to the acquiescent Democratic Party. A November Congressional flip will set a not-so-pretty stage.

Thomas Veil
Apr 11, 2005, 11:14 PM
...what does it say about how far right the GOP has strayed when they're talking about removing a reagan appointee?That's the first thing that popped into my mind, too.

I try not to get too upset when I read stuff like that article. I tell myself it's so much right-wing bluster. But nowadays you can't be sure. Could a power-crazy right wing attempt to impeach forty judges, including one on the Supreme Court?

And if so, where will this put the rest of our government? Will the FBI and the Justice Department quietly go along with this...or will they charge people like Schlafly and Vieira with sedition?

Most importantly, when will we the people get organized enough to protest this insanity, powerfully? It seems to me that we could use a "Million Man March" on Washington right now, specifically aimed at protecting our courts and pointing to "Americans" like these as traitors.

Frankly, although there were wonderful protests at the Republican Convention and the Seattle meeting of the World Bank, activities like these are few and far between. Perhaps it's a lack of leadership from the Democratic Party. Perhaps it's that there are too many liberal protest groups for our own good (i.e., we're too splintered). I long to see some sort of proactive liberal voice, uniting us into one powerful force.

We do have The People on our side. But as long as we stay disorganized, the neo-cons are going to get bolder and more tyrannical.

mactastic
Apr 11, 2005, 11:30 PM
Could a power-crazy right wing attempt to impeach forty judges, including one on the Supreme Court?

Nah, not gonna happen. The American Taliban would like to think they are that powerful, but they're just being used by the corporate types that really run the GOP.

The reason I was interested in this conference is because it was the one that Tom DeLay suddenly 'couldn't make it to' because of the Pope's funeral. Otherwise we would have had some juicy tidbits from DeLay (never one to be outdone by Phyllis Schafly ;) ) instead of from these somewhat-obscure theocons.

Plus I can only imagine the gusto with which Junkie Limbaugh would have hit the airwaves on a day when he could report that liberals were actually quoting Stalin in their quest to exterminate the Enemies of the Left. He would literally have been frothing to have had that chance. But since it's a conservative doing it he could care less.

Xtremehkr
Apr 12, 2005, 05:46 AM
What point are we really at? when that kind of rhetoric is espoused with presumed impunity?

Aside from the glaring fact that it is completely misleading and hateful, why is it now acceptable?

The rest of the US really needs to start making their objections clear. This is still a Democracy, and do it while you still have a say in the matter, please.

IJ Reilly
Apr 12, 2005, 11:44 AM
But since it's a conservative doing it he could care less.

He couldn't care less.

Grammar cop -- feet back and spread 'em!

Anyway, I hope by way of expecting that the agenda of this group is too radical for even the hard-right wingers in the Republican congressional leadership to adopt, but then, we had the Schiavo affair, so we how they are bound to react to having their chains jerked. Whether in the end he spoke there, Tom DeLay was on the program -- and he's the party's number two man in the House.

At the moment, though, I'm wondering how mainstream Republicans feel about this. Do you want these wacky extremists calling the shots for your party, let alone, the nation? We still do have some mainstream Republicans around, don't we?

mischief
Apr 13, 2005, 12:47 PM
When an isolated population is stressed beyond reason over many years, given repetative scapegoat spin for several of those years and bombarded with reasons to doubt their own dissention when things start drifting towards a political precipice a very small group can sway very large countries into incredibly heinous regimes.

I know I'm kicking a dead horse but I really need more people to realize just how much this particular carcass stinks: We're living in times more and more reminiscent of the 1933 to 1938 period in Germany than I'm really comfortable with. At that time very few took the Nazi movement seriously... "Too extreme.", people thought... "Never happen."... so nothing was done. Complacency is as much the driving force of such coups as extreme rhetoric.