2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds

[IJ Reilly]

...and they have the ear of the Republican leadership in Congress. Constitutional crisis here we come?

Taped at a private conference, the leaders outline ways to punish jurists they oppose.

WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.

An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.

The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.

Frist and DeLay have not publicly endorsed the evangelical groups' proposed actions. But the taped discussion among evangelical leaders provides a glimpse of the road map they are drafting as they work with congressional Republicans to achieve a judiciary that sides with them on abortion, same-sex marriage and other elements of their agenda.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.

"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters.

The leaders present at the March conference, including Perkins and James C. Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family, have been working with Frist to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations, a legislative tool that has allowed Senate Democrats to stall 10 of President Bush's nominations. Frist is scheduled to appear, via a taped statement, during a satellite broadcast to churches nationwide Sunday that the Family Research Council has organized to build support for the Bush nominees.

The March conference featuring Dobson and Perkins showed that the evangelical leaders, in addition to working to place conservative nominees on the bench, have been trying to find ways to remove certain judges.

Perkins said that he had attended a meeting with congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of stripping funding from certain courts was "prominently" discussed. "What they're thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them," Perkins said.

He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to "just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out there with nothing to do."

These curbs on courts are "on the radar screen, especially of conservatives here in Congress," he said.

Dobson, who emerged last year as one of the evangelical movement's most important political leaders, named one potential target: the California-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court," Dobson said. "They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-strategy22apr22,1,799431.story

[jelloshotsrule]

wonderful. well, at least our country isn't run by a bunch of radicals.....



oh wait.

[mactastic]

Well the only silver lining is that once these guys completely overreach and get kicked out of office it will be that much easier to replace whoever they put on the bench with liberal idealogues. The GOP may be planning for a permananent majority status, but they can only abuse power for so long before the country gets sick of it and tosses them out on their ears.

Funny thing though is that many of these justices they condemn were put there by the exceedingly liberal Ronald RayGun. So basically they're saying they want to purge from the bench anyone to the left of Antonin Scalia. That's a lot of judges. Of course once the judges start to see their comrades fall, they'll quickly fall into line or be ousted themselves.

Can we say abuse of power boys and girls?

[nbs2]

deleted

[nbs2]

abuse of power or not, appropriations are one of only a few tools that exists for Congress to take action against the courts. It is one of the many features of our government that the founding fathers implemented to ensure that the people would always have control. if the people are unhappy, they will indeed "toss them out on their ears" and vote for those who will restore those courts.

Additionally, Congress could cut the federal courts in an even more powerful way. Art III(1) - "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Art III(2)(2) - "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So, Congress has the power to create or destroy the lower courts as it chooses, and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. But, remember the people.

Remember, there is no set number of justices. This Congress is not the first branch to threaten to manipulate the courts to gain what it wants. It was a switch in time that saved nine during the FDR administration. The Court was threatening to overturn legislation that was central to FDR's reforms. It was only a last minute change in vote that prevented FDR from appointing several more justices in order to ensure that the legislation would be found constitutional. But, of course, the people retain that power over the president.

So, as strange as what is being proposed is, it is no different than any other constitutional request that is being made to local representatives.

[mactastic]

So you'd be OK if the roles were reversed and the Democrats were actively seeking to install judges who'd remove 'under God' from the pledge and generally vote liberal on all things?

Cuz that was the point of my post. Our day will return, and the GOP will be sorry they made the changes they did.

[Thomas Veil]

This is disturbing on so many levels: Republicans drunk with power, Evangelicals having a horrifying amount of influence over government, the constitutional issues involved in playing "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" with the courts....

I have to agree with mactastic. We may be coming close to a time when the public finally gets fed up with this fascist crapola. I may be building sand castles in the air, but I can see, potentially, where the 2006 congressional elections see a surprising turn back to Democrats...basically a reversal of Newt's neo-con takeover of 1994. I don't know whether the Democrats will take a majority...but I do think it's reasonable to hope for at least a two to three seat gain in the Senate, for example.

Interesting article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml) pointing to a potential backlash against the Republicans:

Approval ratings for Congress have historically been low but they're now at one of their lowest points since the late 1990s. Disapproval of the Republican-controlled Congress even extends to 39 percent of Republicans, along with 59 percent of Democrats.

Just 37 percent think what the current Congress has accomplished so far has been good for the country; 41 percent think what Congress has done has been bad.I think the Democrats can do two things to accelerate this process.

(1) Judiciously (if you'll pardon the pun) shut down cooperation with the Republicans. They are already planning to do this, if necessary, with the "nuclear option". If the Republicans go ahead with this crazy plan (de-funding the courts), I think it would not be going too far for the Democrats to threaten to (and actually do it, if necessary) walk out, leaving Congress without a quorum. That would be a drastic tactic to take, but it would draw massive amounts of publicity to the issue of an out-of-control Congress...and by all indications, the Republicans would come out of such an event looking much worse off than the Democrats.

(2) Re-discover their roots. As Nader, the Green Party and hordes of independents are showing us, there is a large contingent that is out there looking for progressives to vote for, not namby-pamby moderates and corporate tools.

[IJ Reilly]

So, as strange as what is being proposed is, it is no different than any other constitutional request that is being made to local representatives.

You've only made the case for how rare it is for the other branches of government to meddle with the independence of the judiciary. You have to go back to FDR to find the last instance, which is widely seen as the lowest point of his 12 years as president. I'd like to hear some experts in Constitutional law speak up about this. Though I hardly claim to know all the facts, I suspect this effort could set off a significant Constitutional crisis of a magnitude we haven't seen since at least Watergate.

[pseudobrit]

You've only made the case for how rare it is for the other branches of government to meddle with the independence of the judiciary. You have to go back to FDR to find the last instance, which is widely seen as the lowest point of his 12 years as president.

It was detestable when FDR did it and it's detestable now.

[IJ Reilly]

Found this article about FDR's failed court-packing scheme on a decidedly right-leaning web site:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm

Some lessons to be had here. I wonder if our friends on the right will remember them when the time comes to take sides on this Constitutional transgression.

[jelloshotsrule]

(2) Re-discover their roots. As Nader, the Green Party and hordes of independents are showing us, there is a large contingent that is out there looking for progressives to vote for, not namby-pamby moderates and corporate tools.

amen! i hardly think that i'm only one of a handful of progressives that will vote for a green or other small party before i vote democratic. this is assuming i know the democrat to be a lesser fit to my ideals... realistically though, it's hard to have thorough information on all candidates..

if the democrats showed some backbone (the ones that show glimmers of hope -eg barbara boxer with one of the recent votes etc all seem to only have it in spurts), i'd be much more likely to go with them and ignore all the hypocrisy their party has come to represent.

i'd like to get a democratic congress in 2k6 if only because we need some balance with these radicals that are currently giddy with power

[jefhatfield]

So you'd be OK if the roles were reversed and the Democrats were actively seeking to install judges who'd remove 'under God' from the pledge and generally vote liberal on all things?

Cuz that was the point of my post. Our day will return, and the GOP will be sorry they made the changes they did.

right now i am reading the history behind the constitution and the debates posed by all sides on the issue

what's interesting is that our way of democracy, in a free republic, with equality was not the way many colonists were treated under british rule so the ideas of our constitution seemed far too progressive for the time for many

the gop of today reminds me of the anti constitutionalists of whom some would rather return to an autocratic king/queen with an elitist, rich ruling class

if the majority of americans want to return to the days of inequality under an autocratic ruler, one party system, then it will be then when it will be seen as ok

but if the extreme elements of the gop came into power and tried to rewrite the constitution, i have a feeling that most of america would reject going against our freedoms we fought so hard for...bush only won by one state and the religious right wingers should keep that in mind and that is the reason bush tries to keep his cabinet balanced

sometimes i wish bush would try and pack his cabinets and courts with people who only thought like john ashcroft or ann coulter, then at least he would have been voted out in 2004

it's a balancing act and while the extreme right wingers will make the news and have america scoff at them, slightly less ridiculous right wingers will slip by and get appointed to benches and elected to public posts...it will take many years to undo some of the bad mistakes of george w bush

[IJ Reilly]

it will take many years to undo some of the bad mistakes of george w bush

It already has. (Year three in Iraq.)

[jelloshotsrule]

sometimes i wish bush would try and pack his cabinets and courts with people who only thought like john ashcroft or ann coulter, then at least he would have been voted out in 2004


that's a good theory. it's actually one that michael moore posed in stupid white men. he basically said that sometimes republicans are better than democrats because they screw things up SO much and don't hide it that people get pissed and do something about it. one would have thought that bush's first term would've been more than enough to get him out of office.... sadly, we are apparently among the minority..... pathetic.

[jefhatfield]

that's a good theory. it's actually one that michael moore posed in stupid white men. he basically said that sometimes republicans are better than democrats because they screw things up SO much and don't hide it that people get pissed and do something about it. one would have thought that bush's first term would've been more than enough to get him out of office.... sadly, we are apparently among the minority..... pathetic.

and just months after bush took his second term, he garnered the lowest approval ratings of any president since world war II...too bad the election couldn't have been held in april 2005...kerry would have wiped him out

it basically shows that so many people who voted for bush barely did so...he's not a president who has true believers like nixon did (before watergate) and reagan in the 1980s, both who received record electoral votes for their second terms...w got in with a lukewarm reception much the way his dad did when he beat dukakis in 1988, and probably even less so

what i think bush will do before his term is out is pass moderate legislation and move to the left in the last year before he exits so he will pass himself successfully as a moderate who had the "voice" of the people...sadly, many will forget his first terrible 7 years he had as president...it will be major damage control

at least reagan and clinton worked with the opposing party from day 1 and looked for solutions most americans would be happy with...some say bush was that way in texas but i don't know what possessed him to act like a dictator as president...sad times we live in

[Pittsax]

and just months after bush took his second term, he garnered the lowest approval ratings of any president since world war II...too bad the election couldn't have been held in april 2005...kerry would have wiped him out

I don't know. I can't help but feel that part of the reason the democrats lost the election was because too many of them were overconfident about how they were clearly going to win, that the young voters would turn out in droves, and that newly registered voters would chip in as well. And what did we see? The same old people voting.

The worst thing Kerry did was ask the American electorate to think. Instead of long drawn-out reasons why we shouldn't vote for Bush, he should have just flung the mud right back. The sad truth is that too often it's not what you say that gets you elected, it's how loudly you say it.

[mactastic]

And what did we see? The same old people voting.

Not entirely true. Rove figured he could turn out more evangelicals than he could capture swing moderates. Something like 4 to 5 million new evangelicals registered and voted in 2004 than did in 2000.

The democrats turned out plenty of new voters; young, old, and swing, but the GOP turned out more.

Now, it the Schaivo case had happened before November last year I can almost guarantee the election would have swung the other way.

[iGary]

Ah, the good Ol' Family Research Council.

Just in cas anyone cares, which I don't expect them to, the main reason I left the Republican party was **** like this.

[mactastic]

Ah, the good Ol' Family Research Council.

Just in cas anyone cares, which I don't expect them to, the main reason I left the Republican party was **** like this.


It boggles my mind that any openly gay people support the GOP at all. The Log Cabin crowd seems like they engage in self-delusion quite a bit, thinking that their party wouldn't strip them of their rights in a flat second if they could.

The reason I most often hear from them is that they are fiscally conservative, to which I reply "Well why not switch and vote for the party of smaller government then!"
:D

[iGary]

It boggles my mind that any openly gay people support the GOP at all. The Log Cabin crowd seems like they engage in self-delusion quite a bit, thinking that their party wouldn't strip them of their rights in a flat second if they could.

The reason I most often hear from them is that they are fiscally conservative, to which I reply "Well why not switch and vote for the party of smaller government then!"
:D

Well at the core of Republican dogma are a core set of beliefs that I agree with passionately. Problem is, our party has forgotten about a lot of them, or taken them to the extreme.

I still believe in those things, but I refuse to be associated with the party anymore.

[mactastic]

Yeah that's the same reason I'm not a Democrat. But you gotta go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the candidates you want, eh?

[iGary]

Yeah that's the same reason I'm not a Democrat. But you gotta go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the candidates you want, eh?

Yup.

I actually wrote in the last two elections, except for our gubernatorial election in Maryland.

[mactastic]

I considered voting for 'Nunn Bush' last time around. :p

[iGary]

I considered voting for 'Nunn Bush' last time around. :p

LOL :D

[Thanatoast]

I have to agree with mactastic. We may be coming close to a time when the public finally gets fed up with this fascist crapola. I may be building sand castles in the air, but I can see, potentially, where the 2006 congressional elections see a surprising turn back to Democrats...basically a reversal of Newt's neo-con takeover of 1994. I don't know whether the Democrats will take a majority...but I do think it's reasonable to hope for at least a two to three seat gain in the Senate, for example.

Interesting article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml) pointing to a potential backlash against the Republicans:
But what about the flipside of the numbers? Couldn't they also be saying that support by GOP party members has fallen because they think the leadership in the congress hasn't pushed hard enough to get Bush's agenda passed? I mean, if you were a fundamentalist-neo con, wouldn't you be upset that your party couldn't seem to push these "common-sense reforms" through a balky congress?

[mactastic]

But what about the flipside of the numbers? Couldn't they also be saying that support by GOP party members has fallen because they think the leadership in the congress hasn't pushed hard enough to get Bush's agenda passed? I mean, if you were a fundamentalist-neo con, wouldn't you be upset that your party couldn't seem to push these "common-sense reforms" through a balky congress?

If you're a fundie neo-con you are getting snowed if you think the religious people run the GOP. Business interests rule the GOP (and let's not kid ourselves, the Democrats as well, but that's another matter), the fundies are only paid lip service during election seasons (which unfortunately seem to be continuous these days.)