Bonus Cultural Warfare Update
Apr. 5th, 2005 05:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdIt's a firehose today - Focus on the Family is leading an all-stops-pulled charge to fill the courts with social fundamentalist judges - even the language is starting to slip occasionally.
Idly, their term for the so-called "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules is "the Constitutional option." If you hear that floating around, that's what they're talking about.
Anyway, I suspect it may continue like this for a while. FotF in particular is firehosing their membership with articles, screeds, action items, mostly on changing Senate rules on judicial filibusters. There are several I haven't even bothered including, because I could have just kept going and going. So here's a special Tuesday news bulletin with some of the most important articles floating around today:
* An article and a transcript are grouped together (though demarked as A and B) where Scalia talks about the absolute necessities of obedience to government, and the primacy of god in government;
* John Cornyn (R-TX) tries to tie two recent judicial shootings to "blowback" to "judicial tyranny"
* Moscow Times (a paper of American expatriates living in Russia) comments on the Consitution Restoration Act of 2004, which has just been reduced in 2005
* Links to the text of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
* James Dobson's Tuesday Focus on the Family primary broadcast - another half hour of his "judicial tyranny" article posted in Monday's news - includes an action item and notes about additional programming coming about this soon;
* Focus on the Family article about "leftist pressure groups" "twisting the truth" to support current judicial filibuster rules, includes an action item;
* NPR radio story about Ohio's extreme anti-marriage law invalidating parts of their domestic violence statutes - they no longer apply to gayfolk and unmarried straight couples;
* Focus on the Family article promoting coalition to change Senate rules, includes an action item;
* Article attacking the ACLU over their court challenge to a proson vocational training programme in Pennsylvania that requires employees to be Christians;
* Focus on the Family complains that California appeals court did not throw out the state Domestic Partnership law, claiming that the anti-marriage-rights law repeals it (without success);
* FotF article on proposed Connecticut Civil Unions bill, includes action item to oppose it;
* FotF article against Alabama law requiring donation disclosure - includes action item against it;
* FotF article about FotF signing letter demanding end to judicial filibusters - includes action item.
----- 1 -----
Two articles (A and B) where Antonin Scalia speaks about the primacy of god over government.
--- A ---
God’s Justice and Ours
Antonin Scalia
Copyright (c) 2002 First Things 123 (May 2002): 17-21.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.
In recent years, that philosophy has been particularly well enshrined in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, our case law dealing with the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Several of our opinions have said that what falls within this prohibition is not static, but changes from generation to generation, to comport with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Applying that principle, the Court came close, in 1972, to abolishing the death penalty entirely. It ultimately did not do so, but it has imposed, under color of the Constitution, procedural and substantive limitations that did not exist when the Eighth Amendment was adopted—and some of which had not even been adopted by a majority of the states at the time they were judicially decreed. For example, the Court has prohibited the death penalty for all crimes except murder, and indeed even for what might be called run–of–the–mill murders, as opposed to those that are somehow characterized by a high degree of brutality or depravity. It has prohibited the mandatory imposition of the death penalty for any crime, insisting that in all cases the jury be permitted to consider all mitigating factors and to impose, if it wishes, a lesser sentence. And it has imposed an age limit at the time of the offense (it is currently seventeen) that is well above what existed at common law.
If I subscribed to the proposition that I am authorized (indeed, I suppose compelled) to intuit and impose our “maturing” society’s “evolving standards of decency,” this essay would be a preview of my next vote in a death penalty case. As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul–wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse–thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court’s approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.
[more at URL]
--- B ---
SESSION THREE: RELIGION, POLITICS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY
The Pew Forum
Transcript
MODERATOR: E.J. DIONNE, JR.
PANELISTS: JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, PAUL SIMON, BETH WILKINSON
http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/transcript3.php3
JOHN CARLSON, University of Chicago and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: For those of you who are just joining us, let me recap briefly a bit of the terrain we covered today. This morning we were introduced to several religious accounts of, and reckonings with, capital punishment, asking whether the death penalty is permitted or required; what circumstances warrant or mitigate such decisions; what resources, such as scripture, theology and tradition, shape our views on this subject; and finally, whether this wisdom lends currency as our society grapples with this issue.
In the afternoon panel, after Governor Keating’s defense of capital punishment as a tool of punishment, retribution and necessity, we then moved to a focused discussion of these aspects and others as they relate to broader understandings of justice, including what justice is and what justice is not.
We turn now to the question of how personal beliefs or convictions square with public offices and responsibilities. We are fortunate to have with us today a dream-team lineup, members – either past or present – of the three branches of federal government. We are privileged, as well, to have as our session chair a distinguished member of the Fourth Estate – the media – the Pew Forum’s own E.J. Dionne.
[...]
SCALIA: The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do has adverse effects in other areas as well: civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. “Ye must needs be subject,” he said, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake” – for conscience sake.
It seems to me that the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should be not resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible, and a principal way of combating it, in my view, is constant public reminder that – in the words of one of the Supreme Court’s religion cases in the days when we understood the religion clauses better than I think we now do – “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.”
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
BREAKING: GOP Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says violence against judges is understandable
4/4/2005 07:36:00 PM
[Ed. Note: I'm not thrilled with this as a source. However, it's repeated enough and in line with the fundamentalist spin on all this news that I do buy it. I just wish I had another source.]
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/breaking-gop-senator-john-cornyn-r-tx.html
UPDATE: The transcript is attached, in context, at the end of this post. Also, a second GOP congressman has now accused judges of cruelly killing Terri Schiavo, and Congressman Conyers has openly criticized Cornyn.
Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.
At 5PM today on the Senate floor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) gave an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are "unaccountable" to the public. Sources on the Hill went and pulled the transcript of what Cornyn said, and it read:
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]
We now have Republican Senators making excuses for terrorists. Explaining why terrorism is understandable. Why terrorists have legitimate concerns. Justifying why the victims of terrorism are really to blame for these heinous crimes. Wonder what Senator Cornyn thinks of rape victims?
----- 3 -----
Pin Heads
If enacted, the Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" can override law.
By Chris Floyd
Published: March 12, 2004
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199
[Note: this is about the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, not 2005. However, the 2005 version appears to be identical. Hopefully, it is as DOA as 2004's version was. But it does indicate where they'd like to go next.]
One of the sticking points in crafting the just-signed "interim constitution" of the Pentagon cash cow formerly known as Iraq was the question of acknowledging Islam as the fundamental source of law. After much wrangling, a fudge was worked out that cites the Koran as a fundamental source of legal authority, with the proviso that no law can be passed that conflicts with Islam.
We in the enlightened West smile at such theocratic quibbling, of course: Imagine, national leaders insisting that a modern state be governed solely by divine authority! Governments guaranteeing the right of religious extremists to impose their views on society! What next -- debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, those poor, ignorant barbarians in Babylon!
Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.
The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.
----- 4 -----
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
(From a livejournal post)
But judges face another threat in the course of doing their jobs -- a legislative one. It's the reintroduction of HR 1070 and S 520, the Constitution Restoraction Act of 2005. Here's the full text of the House bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:
and the Senate bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:
The summary ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01070:@@@D&summ2=m& ) is identical in both cases:
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
----- 5 -----
Focus on the Family
James Dobson
The Battle Against Judicial Tyranny, Pt 2
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Dr. James Dobson will read from his April Focus on the Family Action newsletter and the subject is all too familiar. Judicial tyranny is affecting everything that conservatives hold dear. From life issues to a marriage amendment Dr. Dobson defines the problem and lays down groundwork for you to get involved. Find out what you can do by listening to this important broadcast.
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp
"It's 30 days until the national day of prayer" - an ad played in advance of the show. "We have disrespected your world, disregarded your gifts, discarded your children." Calls to have godly influence in courts and legislature, "May they serve [god] first, and honour [god] most."
"Coming back to something we started on our last programming, that is, a newsletter..." "It's passionate, it's disturbing, it's ominous in its tone, and there's a really good reason for that!" "I think this may be the most important letter I've ever written..." "This ranks at the top in terms of my priourities and passion. What I'm about to finish reading... is my monthly Focus on the Family Action Letter, that comes from our C4 ministry, the action portion of what we do..." "Lobbying in defense of ... righteousness in the culture." "Sending this out to more than a million people... many of you will be receiving this letter in the mail shortly... it deals with absolutely everything I care about - the focal point is... the destruction of American freedoms... and the imposition of the will of the court on the desires of the people." "When the courts make all the great moral decisions of the time, and override the morals of the people... something is wrong." "The sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, what's going to be done with cloning and embryonic stem cell research, pornography, gambling - it's all there - the court makes all those decisions! We don't have an opportunity to do that."
Read about 60-70% of letter yesterday. First recaps from portion read yesterday. Cites Terri S. court cases again, and a California court ruling against their anti-marriage ban. Plays on the anti-marriage drum again. Uses majority vote in anti-marriage vote last time. "What utter arrogance!" "We knew this assault on the institution of marriage was coming, and it won't be the last!" "Judges across the country are itching to establish same-sex marriage by judicial decree!" Continues banging on the anti-marriage drum. "The heady abuse of power all too common amoung independent fiefdoms [judges and the courts]... the US Supreme Court threatens the liberty that countless men died to secure..." "Unaccountable, arrogant, and often godless judges..." Rails against Marlbury v. Madison (1803) again, says it gave courts "unrivaled Imperial power." Quotes Jefferson, for once - who they normally ignore - because he opposed the idea of judicial review. Judges strike down "laws they don't like, whether the reflect the reality of the underlying document or not!" "The court 'evolves,' they call it, to fit the biases of the court." (Note the use of the scary "evolution" invocation by inference.)
"The troublesome 9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco which consistently issues off-the-wall rulings... could be abolished and then staffed by different justices immediately! But the congress doesn't have the political gumption to take such action!" "Democracy itself hangs in the balance!" References Ten Commandments case in the Supreme Court, "Because justice Anthony Kennedy, and the oligarchy, deem it so! Maybe they can find justification... in European public opinion!" "But then, our opinions were of no consequence!" "Judicial hostility towards faith, and particularly Christianity, has never been stronger."
"Undeniably obscene sex videos... declared Federal obscenity statues to be unconsitutional... Judge Lancaster defended his decision... upholding the public morality is not a legitimate state interest! Judge Lancaster is essentially insisting that America's laws cannot come from morality!" References Lawrence v. Texas again. "Gary Lancaster. Never forget it. He is symbolic of what is wrong with America's judicial system." Calls this an "anti-religion ruling."
"First, we need legislatures who have the moxie to do what is right for the country... COngress needs to know that we've had enough! Secondly, our country desperately needs principled justices who will... [not] impose European socialism and politically correct thinking! Today's liberals in the Senate need to know they will be held accountable... if they do not allow up-or-down votes on judicial nominees." Demands strictly "conservative" justices who will end abortion and (by implication) overturn both Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.
Urge to call senators demanding "up or down votes" for each of the nominees Bush puts up. Gives sample call script for Democrats and Republicans. Democratic script: "You will have to explain it the next time you run. It will not be forgotten. That's a promise." Republican script: "The liberal judiciary threatens our beliefs about every one of those issues. You have been made the majority of the house, and of the senate, and a Republican occupies the white house... if you fritter away the responsibility to reform the judiciary... it's time to fish or cut bait." Also urges prayers, "we desperately need divine intervention to save the nation that was birthed in prayer" and so on.
Talks about expected retirement of Justice Renquist; all expected nominees will be conservatives. Calls specifically for Scalia to be chief justice, then a Scalia-type judge to fulfill the vacant spot.
Calls upon Bush to press forward for social fundamentalist judges both in public and behind the scenes in Congress.
Calls also for money specifically to Focus on the Family Action, saying they're "running low" on political money and notes that they aren't tax deductible but are specifically "vital" - to "run ads and continue our lobbying effort." They have an 18 month timetable.
"Let me emphasise once more that t he left has plans to wage an all-out war against conservative supreme court nominees. The confrontation is coming with a vengeance, and we must be ready to respond swiftly and forcefully."
End of letter. Talks more about the need to "It is a rising crescendo." "You will hear more about this." Tom DeLay quote about punishing judges was "skewered" by "the liberal media." Tom DeLay quote: "We will look at an arrogant and out of control, unaccountable, judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the President when given the jurisdiction to hear this case anew and look at all the facts and make a determination, they chose not to participate, contrary to what Congress and the President told them to do. We will look into that."
"I believe there's a chance to rein in the court, and I believe that is desperately needed."
Will come back to this next Monday - Mark Levin (?) - author of "Men in Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America" will be on. Has been on Hannity and Combs, and Rush Limbaugh; "he is getting a lot of exposure these days, and for very good reason."
----- 6 -----
Liberals Go Hollywood on Filibusters
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
http://family.org/cforum/feature/a0036102.cfm
Left-wing pressure groups have raised the intensity — and twisted the facts — in producing TV ads to make their case for continuing to filibuster the president's judicial nominees.
A multimillion dollar effort is under way to leverage the filibusters being used by Democrats to block conservative judicial nominees as a strong-arm tactic against Senate Republicans.
The plan is to turn public opinion against members of the GOP majority who are considering what has been mischaracterized in the media as the "nuclear option" — restoring Senate tradition to a simple, 51-vote majority to confirm judicial nominees. As it stands now, thanks to the Democrat-led filibusters that have, to date, kept 10 qualified men and women from even receiving an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, the threshold for confirmation is 60 votes.
Two leftist pressure groups, the Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way (PFAW) are leading the coalition attempting to put a positive face on the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. Dozens of liberal groups are joining the campaign by donating money or running promotions of their own, including pro-abortion organizations that fear the judiciary may stop expanding abortion rights if President Bush's nominees are allowed a vote.
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, said all of these groups' agendas are obvious.
"This campaign will be about misrepresenting the truth in order to raise more money and maintain their grip on the federal judiciary," she said.
[more at URL - including an action item]
----- 7 -----
Ohio's anti-marriage amendment relaxes domestic violence law
NPR
5 April 2005
Heard on the radio:
Ohio's anti-marriage law is the broadest - so broad that domestic violence laws only now apply to legally-married couples, according to several judges.
Ohio's domestic violence statues have been ruled partially unconstitional when applied to unmarried couples of any gender living together, because of the strictness of their anti-marriage amendment.
Fundamentalists claim that "gay marriage advocates" are twisting the law. Assault charges aren't considered as serious as domestic violence cases.
Calls for changes to the domestic violence statute. The Ohio Supreme Court will be reviewing the issue but no timetable is set yet.
----- 8 -----
End the Filibuster Coalition Formed
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Conservative groups are urging Congress to do whatever it takes to end Senate blockage of judicial nominees.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036099.cfm
A coalition of almost 200 conservative organizations is asking the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate to take swift action to end the Democrat-led filibusters against President Bush's nominees to the federal bench.
The groups, with constituencies of tens of millions of Americans, ask GOP leadership in a letter to quickly enact the "constitutional option"—breaking the filibusters (which require 60 votes to overcome) by reestablishing the Senate tradition of 51 votes being sufficient for a nominee's confirmation.
Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if Republicans take such action to end the obstructionism that has prevented 10 qualified candidates from receiving up-or-down votes.
David Keene, who heads the American Conservative Union—one of the coalition members—said Republicans must act quickly.
"It's apparent that there is no other option," he said, "because this minority in the Senate is willing to use whatever tools it can find to work its will on the majority."
Coalition head Manny Miranda agreed.
"Our coalition is to express to the GOP leadership and conference that they should go forward," he said. "They can go forward, and they should do it on a timely basis."
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly signed the coalition letter, as well. He said the president's nominees need to be confirmed to check a radical judiciary that is tearing America's moral values apart.
"We have so much work to do, it should be sooner than later," he said of the need for the GOP to act quickly. "If we wait any longer, it will cause us more difficulty."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, echoed that sentiment.
"The message to the Republican leadership is 'The clock is running—it's time to act,' " Bauer said, " 'You've tried everything else, and the people that elected you across the country, millions of Americans, at least in part, elected (you) because they anticipated that (you) would change the courts.' "
An opportunity for Republicans to move to break the filibusters could come as soon as this week, since a committee vote on filibustered nominee Priscilla Owen is scheduled for Thursday.
[More at URL, including an action item]
----- 9 -----
ACLU Challenges Prison Ministry
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Efforts to help inmates are under attack, with the bull's-eye most recently falling on a Pennsylvania program.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036098.cfm
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging whether a prison ministry in Pennsylvania can receive federal funding, claiming it violates the First Amendment by using federal money for religious purposes.
The ministry, Firm Foundation of America, says it is just trying to offer vocational training in Jesus' name.
The assault could have widespread implications. Had someone not brought them the Gospel, many prisoners would have lost hope. One such prisoner, Eric Crandall, who just got out of prison, said ministries like Firm Foundation can be a great help.
"(The) prison ministries (were) a breath of fresh air inside of a dark place," he said.
But the ACLU is ready to sentence many of these ministries to the streets, partly because they insist on hiring Christians to do their work.
"You cannot use a religious test to decide who you're going to hire to provide the government services," said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney.
Tim Tracey, who represents Firm Foundation, said that is not something the courts have ever said.
"There has not been a single case that has said that a religious organization's hiring practices somehow violate the establishment clause," Tracey said.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Focus on the Family
5 April 2005
California Domestic-Partners Law Upheld
The California Court of Appeals refused Monday to overturn
AB 205 -- a law giving the "same rights, protections, and
benefits" of marriage to "registered domestic partners."
Although California voters passed a Marriage Defense Act
(Proposition 22), AB 205 effectively voids that law,
according to the Alliance Defense Fund's Robert Tyler.
The appellate court didn't see it that way.
"It's false to say that AB 205 has no impact on marriage
or the will of the California people," Tyler explained.
"The Legislature has indirectly repealed Proposition 22
by enacting AB 205."
The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from
amending or repealing a voter initiative without the
consent of the voters, so the struggle between the two
initiatives will continue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: For updates on efforts to pass
Defense of Marriage Acts around the country visit
www.domawatch.org
----- 11 -----
Focus on the Family
5 April 2005
Connecticut Senate Considers Civil-Unions Bill
The Connecticut Senate is poised to approve a civil-unions
bill Wednesday. SB 963 would create civil unions in
Connecticut with the same rights and benefits of marriage.
If the bill is approved, same-sex marriage is just a short
step away. Marriage in Connecticut must be protected, but
a bill to send a marriage-protection amendment to the
ballot is being stalled in the Legislature, while this
civil-unions bill advances.
A Harris Poll conducted this February found that 78
percent of Connecticut's voters believe that marriage is
the union of a man and woman and 76 percent want to vote
on an amendment to protect the traditional definition of
marriage.
TAKE ACTION: If you live in Connecticut, please contact
your state senator and urge him or her to oppose SB 963
and support the marriage-protection amendment -- tell your
senator you want the opportunity to vote on marriage. For
contact information, please visit our CitizenLink Action
Center and enter your ZIP code.
----- 12 -----
Donation Limits Debated in Alabama
Focus on the Family
April 4, 2005
Vote could come as early as Tuesday.
http://family.org/cforum/statenews/a0036086.cfm
The Alabama Senate will vote Tuesday on a bill that would require organizations that work to influence the outcome of legislation to disclose the names of their donors — whether or not those donations were made in support of lobbying activity.
The increased reporting requirements have the potential to harm pro-family groups — and others — across the state. Under HB 75, donors would no longer be protected from public scrutiny.
This legislation will discourage groups from informing private citizens about legislation pending and urge them to make their views know to their legislators.
TAKE ACTION
If you live in Alabama, please contact your senator and let him or her know you oppose HB 75. A vote is expected Tuesday, so don't delay. For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
----- 13 -----
Focus on the Family Urges End of Judicial Filibusters
by Sonja Swiatkiewicz, contributing editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Ministry signs on to letter decrying liberal
obstructionism as "an unconscionable shirking of 'advice
and consent' duty."
Focus on the Family today joined nearly 200 groups in
calling for an end to judicial filibusters and a return to
Senate tradition.
In a letter to U.S. senators, Focus on the Family and the
other signatories "call on the Senate Leadership and the
Republican Majority to end the filibusters on appellate
nominees and well before a Supreme Court vacancy occurs."
"We believe that generations of Americans are called at
moments to lay foundations for the future, and that this
is one such moment," the letter states.
From the beginning of our nation, the Founders
established a government in which the three branches have
the ability and the responsibility to check each other.
The judicial branch is "subject to a written Constitution
and the checks and balances of the other branches that it
prescribes."
Unfortunately, our country is again seeing a judicial
crisis -- one in which the legislative branch is failing
to fulfill its constitutional duty of confirming the
president's judicial nominees. These nominees, being
opposed by Senate Democrats through judicial filibusters
that require 60 votes to end, certainly have the majority
support needed to be confirmed if only allowed an
up-or-down vote.
"Now the Minority has changed 215 years of Senate
tradition by abusing the filibuster for the first time
against nominees with clear majority support," the letter
continues. "We call for a restoration of Senate
traditions, returning to the majority vote on Advice and
Consent the Constitution mandates."
"Today's filibuster crisis is an unconscionable shirking
of the 'advice and consent' duty of the Senate," said Dr.
James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "The
president -- and indeed, the American people -- are
entitled to see the men and women nominated to federal
courts be voted on by the full Senate. These Senate
Democrats, who just a few years ago deplored the hijacking
of the confirmation process by filibuster, must end this
partisan blockade and fulfill their constitutional duty."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To view the entire letter and its
signatories, click on the link below:
www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/coalitionletter.pdf
Idly, their term for the so-called "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules is "the Constitutional option." If you hear that floating around, that's what they're talking about.
Anyway, I suspect it may continue like this for a while. FotF in particular is firehosing their membership with articles, screeds, action items, mostly on changing Senate rules on judicial filibusters. There are several I haven't even bothered including, because I could have just kept going and going. So here's a special Tuesday news bulletin with some of the most important articles floating around today:
* An article and a transcript are grouped together (though demarked as A and B) where Scalia talks about the absolute necessities of obedience to government, and the primacy of god in government;
* John Cornyn (R-TX) tries to tie two recent judicial shootings to "blowback" to "judicial tyranny"
* Moscow Times (a paper of American expatriates living in Russia) comments on the Consitution Restoration Act of 2004, which has just been reduced in 2005
* Links to the text of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
* James Dobson's Tuesday Focus on the Family primary broadcast - another half hour of his "judicial tyranny" article posted in Monday's news - includes an action item and notes about additional programming coming about this soon;
* Focus on the Family article about "leftist pressure groups" "twisting the truth" to support current judicial filibuster rules, includes an action item;
* NPR radio story about Ohio's extreme anti-marriage law invalidating parts of their domestic violence statutes - they no longer apply to gayfolk and unmarried straight couples;
* Focus on the Family article promoting coalition to change Senate rules, includes an action item;
* Article attacking the ACLU over their court challenge to a proson vocational training programme in Pennsylvania that requires employees to be Christians;
* Focus on the Family complains that California appeals court did not throw out the state Domestic Partnership law, claiming that the anti-marriage-rights law repeals it (without success);
* FotF article on proposed Connecticut Civil Unions bill, includes action item to oppose it;
* FotF article against Alabama law requiring donation disclosure - includes action item against it;
* FotF article about FotF signing letter demanding end to judicial filibusters - includes action item.
----- 1 -----
Two articles (A and B) where Antonin Scalia speaks about the primacy of god over government.
--- A ---
God’s Justice and Ours
Antonin Scalia
Copyright (c) 2002 First Things 123 (May 2002): 17-21.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.
In recent years, that philosophy has been particularly well enshrined in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, our case law dealing with the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Several of our opinions have said that what falls within this prohibition is not static, but changes from generation to generation, to comport with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Applying that principle, the Court came close, in 1972, to abolishing the death penalty entirely. It ultimately did not do so, but it has imposed, under color of the Constitution, procedural and substantive limitations that did not exist when the Eighth Amendment was adopted—and some of which had not even been adopted by a majority of the states at the time they were judicially decreed. For example, the Court has prohibited the death penalty for all crimes except murder, and indeed even for what might be called run–of–the–mill murders, as opposed to those that are somehow characterized by a high degree of brutality or depravity. It has prohibited the mandatory imposition of the death penalty for any crime, insisting that in all cases the jury be permitted to consider all mitigating factors and to impose, if it wishes, a lesser sentence. And it has imposed an age limit at the time of the offense (it is currently seventeen) that is well above what existed at common law.
If I subscribed to the proposition that I am authorized (indeed, I suppose compelled) to intuit and impose our “maturing” society’s “evolving standards of decency,” this essay would be a preview of my next vote in a death penalty case. As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul–wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse–thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court’s approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.
[more at URL]
--- B ---
SESSION THREE: RELIGION, POLITICS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY
The Pew Forum
Transcript
MODERATOR: E.J. DIONNE, JR.
PANELISTS: JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, PAUL SIMON, BETH WILKINSON
http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/transcript3.php3
JOHN CARLSON, University of Chicago and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: For those of you who are just joining us, let me recap briefly a bit of the terrain we covered today. This morning we were introduced to several religious accounts of, and reckonings with, capital punishment, asking whether the death penalty is permitted or required; what circumstances warrant or mitigate such decisions; what resources, such as scripture, theology and tradition, shape our views on this subject; and finally, whether this wisdom lends currency as our society grapples with this issue.
In the afternoon panel, after Governor Keating’s defense of capital punishment as a tool of punishment, retribution and necessity, we then moved to a focused discussion of these aspects and others as they relate to broader understandings of justice, including what justice is and what justice is not.
We turn now to the question of how personal beliefs or convictions square with public offices and responsibilities. We are fortunate to have with us today a dream-team lineup, members – either past or present – of the three branches of federal government. We are privileged, as well, to have as our session chair a distinguished member of the Fourth Estate – the media – the Pew Forum’s own E.J. Dionne.
[...]
SCALIA: The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do has adverse effects in other areas as well: civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. “Ye must needs be subject,” he said, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake” – for conscience sake.
It seems to me that the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should be not resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible, and a principal way of combating it, in my view, is constant public reminder that – in the words of one of the Supreme Court’s religion cases in the days when we understood the religion clauses better than I think we now do – “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.”
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
BREAKING: GOP Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says violence against judges is understandable
4/4/2005 07:36:00 PM
[Ed. Note: I'm not thrilled with this as a source. However, it's repeated enough and in line with the fundamentalist spin on all this news that I do buy it. I just wish I had another source.]
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/breaking-gop-senator-john-cornyn-r-tx.html
UPDATE: The transcript is attached, in context, at the end of this post. Also, a second GOP congressman has now accused judges of cruelly killing Terri Schiavo, and Congressman Conyers has openly criticized Cornyn.
Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.
At 5PM today on the Senate floor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) gave an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are "unaccountable" to the public. Sources on the Hill went and pulled the transcript of what Cornyn said, and it read:
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]
We now have Republican Senators making excuses for terrorists. Explaining why terrorism is understandable. Why terrorists have legitimate concerns. Justifying why the victims of terrorism are really to blame for these heinous crimes. Wonder what Senator Cornyn thinks of rape victims?
----- 3 -----
Pin Heads
If enacted, the Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" can override law.
By Chris Floyd
Published: March 12, 2004
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199
[Note: this is about the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, not 2005. However, the 2005 version appears to be identical. Hopefully, it is as DOA as 2004's version was. But it does indicate where they'd like to go next.]
One of the sticking points in crafting the just-signed "interim constitution" of the Pentagon cash cow formerly known as Iraq was the question of acknowledging Islam as the fundamental source of law. After much wrangling, a fudge was worked out that cites the Koran as a fundamental source of legal authority, with the proviso that no law can be passed that conflicts with Islam.
We in the enlightened West smile at such theocratic quibbling, of course: Imagine, national leaders insisting that a modern state be governed solely by divine authority! Governments guaranteeing the right of religious extremists to impose their views on society! What next -- debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, those poor, ignorant barbarians in Babylon!
Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.
The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.
----- 4 -----
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
(From a livejournal post)
But judges face another threat in the course of doing their jobs -- a legislative one. It's the reintroduction of HR 1070 and S 520, the Constitution Restoraction Act of 2005. Here's the full text of the House bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:
and the Senate bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:
The summary ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01070:@@@D&summ2=m& ) is identical in both cases:
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
----- 5 -----
Focus on the Family
James Dobson
The Battle Against Judicial Tyranny, Pt 2
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Dr. James Dobson will read from his April Focus on the Family Action newsletter and the subject is all too familiar. Judicial tyranny is affecting everything that conservatives hold dear. From life issues to a marriage amendment Dr. Dobson defines the problem and lays down groundwork for you to get involved. Find out what you can do by listening to this important broadcast.
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp
"It's 30 days until the national day of prayer" - an ad played in advance of the show. "We have disrespected your world, disregarded your gifts, discarded your children." Calls to have godly influence in courts and legislature, "May they serve [god] first, and honour [god] most."
"Coming back to something we started on our last programming, that is, a newsletter..." "It's passionate, it's disturbing, it's ominous in its tone, and there's a really good reason for that!" "I think this may be the most important letter I've ever written..." "This ranks at the top in terms of my priourities and passion. What I'm about to finish reading... is my monthly Focus on the Family Action Letter, that comes from our C4 ministry, the action portion of what we do..." "Lobbying in defense of ... righteousness in the culture." "Sending this out to more than a million people... many of you will be receiving this letter in the mail shortly... it deals with absolutely everything I care about - the focal point is... the destruction of American freedoms... and the imposition of the will of the court on the desires of the people." "When the courts make all the great moral decisions of the time, and override the morals of the people... something is wrong." "The sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, what's going to be done with cloning and embryonic stem cell research, pornography, gambling - it's all there - the court makes all those decisions! We don't have an opportunity to do that."
Read about 60-70% of letter yesterday. First recaps from portion read yesterday. Cites Terri S. court cases again, and a California court ruling against their anti-marriage ban. Plays on the anti-marriage drum again. Uses majority vote in anti-marriage vote last time. "What utter arrogance!" "We knew this assault on the institution of marriage was coming, and it won't be the last!" "Judges across the country are itching to establish same-sex marriage by judicial decree!" Continues banging on the anti-marriage drum. "The heady abuse of power all too common amoung independent fiefdoms [judges and the courts]... the US Supreme Court threatens the liberty that countless men died to secure..." "Unaccountable, arrogant, and often godless judges..." Rails against Marlbury v. Madison (1803) again, says it gave courts "unrivaled Imperial power." Quotes Jefferson, for once - who they normally ignore - because he opposed the idea of judicial review. Judges strike down "laws they don't like, whether the reflect the reality of the underlying document or not!" "The court 'evolves,' they call it, to fit the biases of the court." (Note the use of the scary "evolution" invocation by inference.)
"The troublesome 9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco which consistently issues off-the-wall rulings... could be abolished and then staffed by different justices immediately! But the congress doesn't have the political gumption to take such action!" "Democracy itself hangs in the balance!" References Ten Commandments case in the Supreme Court, "Because justice Anthony Kennedy, and the oligarchy, deem it so! Maybe they can find justification... in European public opinion!" "But then, our opinions were of no consequence!" "Judicial hostility towards faith, and particularly Christianity, has never been stronger."
"Undeniably obscene sex videos... declared Federal obscenity statues to be unconsitutional... Judge Lancaster defended his decision... upholding the public morality is not a legitimate state interest! Judge Lancaster is essentially insisting that America's laws cannot come from morality!" References Lawrence v. Texas again. "Gary Lancaster. Never forget it. He is symbolic of what is wrong with America's judicial system." Calls this an "anti-religion ruling."
"First, we need legislatures who have the moxie to do what is right for the country... COngress needs to know that we've had enough! Secondly, our country desperately needs principled justices who will... [not] impose European socialism and politically correct thinking! Today's liberals in the Senate need to know they will be held accountable... if they do not allow up-or-down votes on judicial nominees." Demands strictly "conservative" justices who will end abortion and (by implication) overturn both Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.
Urge to call senators demanding "up or down votes" for each of the nominees Bush puts up. Gives sample call script for Democrats and Republicans. Democratic script: "You will have to explain it the next time you run. It will not be forgotten. That's a promise." Republican script: "The liberal judiciary threatens our beliefs about every one of those issues. You have been made the majority of the house, and of the senate, and a Republican occupies the white house... if you fritter away the responsibility to reform the judiciary... it's time to fish or cut bait." Also urges prayers, "we desperately need divine intervention to save the nation that was birthed in prayer" and so on.
Talks about expected retirement of Justice Renquist; all expected nominees will be conservatives. Calls specifically for Scalia to be chief justice, then a Scalia-type judge to fulfill the vacant spot.
Calls upon Bush to press forward for social fundamentalist judges both in public and behind the scenes in Congress.
Calls also for money specifically to Focus on the Family Action, saying they're "running low" on political money and notes that they aren't tax deductible but are specifically "vital" - to "run ads and continue our lobbying effort." They have an 18 month timetable.
"Let me emphasise once more that t he left has plans to wage an all-out war against conservative supreme court nominees. The confrontation is coming with a vengeance, and we must be ready to respond swiftly and forcefully."
End of letter. Talks more about the need to "It is a rising crescendo." "You will hear more about this." Tom DeLay quote about punishing judges was "skewered" by "the liberal media." Tom DeLay quote: "We will look at an arrogant and out of control, unaccountable, judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the President when given the jurisdiction to hear this case anew and look at all the facts and make a determination, they chose not to participate, contrary to what Congress and the President told them to do. We will look into that."
"I believe there's a chance to rein in the court, and I believe that is desperately needed."
Will come back to this next Monday - Mark Levin (?) - author of "Men in Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America" will be on. Has been on Hannity and Combs, and Rush Limbaugh; "he is getting a lot of exposure these days, and for very good reason."
----- 6 -----
Liberals Go Hollywood on Filibusters
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
http://family.org/cforum/feature/a0036102.cfm
Left-wing pressure groups have raised the intensity — and twisted the facts — in producing TV ads to make their case for continuing to filibuster the president's judicial nominees.
A multimillion dollar effort is under way to leverage the filibusters being used by Democrats to block conservative judicial nominees as a strong-arm tactic against Senate Republicans.
The plan is to turn public opinion against members of the GOP majority who are considering what has been mischaracterized in the media as the "nuclear option" — restoring Senate tradition to a simple, 51-vote majority to confirm judicial nominees. As it stands now, thanks to the Democrat-led filibusters that have, to date, kept 10 qualified men and women from even receiving an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, the threshold for confirmation is 60 votes.
Two leftist pressure groups, the Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way (PFAW) are leading the coalition attempting to put a positive face on the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. Dozens of liberal groups are joining the campaign by donating money or running promotions of their own, including pro-abortion organizations that fear the judiciary may stop expanding abortion rights if President Bush's nominees are allowed a vote.
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, said all of these groups' agendas are obvious.
"This campaign will be about misrepresenting the truth in order to raise more money and maintain their grip on the federal judiciary," she said.
[more at URL - including an action item]
----- 7 -----
Ohio's anti-marriage amendment relaxes domestic violence law
NPR
5 April 2005
Heard on the radio:
Ohio's anti-marriage law is the broadest - so broad that domestic violence laws only now apply to legally-married couples, according to several judges.
Ohio's domestic violence statues have been ruled partially unconstitional when applied to unmarried couples of any gender living together, because of the strictness of their anti-marriage amendment.
Fundamentalists claim that "gay marriage advocates" are twisting the law. Assault charges aren't considered as serious as domestic violence cases.
Calls for changes to the domestic violence statute. The Ohio Supreme Court will be reviewing the issue but no timetable is set yet.
----- 8 -----
End the Filibuster Coalition Formed
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Conservative groups are urging Congress to do whatever it takes to end Senate blockage of judicial nominees.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036099.cfm
A coalition of almost 200 conservative organizations is asking the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate to take swift action to end the Democrat-led filibusters against President Bush's nominees to the federal bench.
The groups, with constituencies of tens of millions of Americans, ask GOP leadership in a letter to quickly enact the "constitutional option"—breaking the filibusters (which require 60 votes to overcome) by reestablishing the Senate tradition of 51 votes being sufficient for a nominee's confirmation.
Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if Republicans take such action to end the obstructionism that has prevented 10 qualified candidates from receiving up-or-down votes.
David Keene, who heads the American Conservative Union—one of the coalition members—said Republicans must act quickly.
"It's apparent that there is no other option," he said, "because this minority in the Senate is willing to use whatever tools it can find to work its will on the majority."
Coalition head Manny Miranda agreed.
"Our coalition is to express to the GOP leadership and conference that they should go forward," he said. "They can go forward, and they should do it on a timely basis."
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly signed the coalition letter, as well. He said the president's nominees need to be confirmed to check a radical judiciary that is tearing America's moral values apart.
"We have so much work to do, it should be sooner than later," he said of the need for the GOP to act quickly. "If we wait any longer, it will cause us more difficulty."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, echoed that sentiment.
"The message to the Republican leadership is 'The clock is running—it's time to act,' " Bauer said, " 'You've tried everything else, and the people that elected you across the country, millions of Americans, at least in part, elected (you) because they anticipated that (you) would change the courts.' "
An opportunity for Republicans to move to break the filibusters could come as soon as this week, since a committee vote on filibustered nominee Priscilla Owen is scheduled for Thursday.
[More at URL, including an action item]
----- 9 -----
ACLU Challenges Prison Ministry
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Efforts to help inmates are under attack, with the bull's-eye most recently falling on a Pennsylvania program.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036098.cfm
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging whether a prison ministry in Pennsylvania can receive federal funding, claiming it violates the First Amendment by using federal money for religious purposes.
The ministry, Firm Foundation of America, says it is just trying to offer vocational training in Jesus' name.
The assault could have widespread implications. Had someone not brought them the Gospel, many prisoners would have lost hope. One such prisoner, Eric Crandall, who just got out of prison, said ministries like Firm Foundation can be a great help.
"(The) prison ministries (were) a breath of fresh air inside of a dark place," he said.
But the ACLU is ready to sentence many of these ministries to the streets, partly because they insist on hiring Christians to do their work.
"You cannot use a religious test to decide who you're going to hire to provide the government services," said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney.
Tim Tracey, who represents Firm Foundation, said that is not something the courts have ever said.
"There has not been a single case that has said that a religious organization's hiring practices somehow violate the establishment clause," Tracey said.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Focus on the Family
5 April 2005
California Domestic-Partners Law Upheld
The California Court of Appeals refused Monday to overturn
AB 205 -- a law giving the "same rights, protections, and
benefits" of marriage to "registered domestic partners."
Although California voters passed a Marriage Defense Act
(Proposition 22), AB 205 effectively voids that law,
according to the Alliance Defense Fund's Robert Tyler.
The appellate court didn't see it that way.
"It's false to say that AB 205 has no impact on marriage
or the will of the California people," Tyler explained.
"The Legislature has indirectly repealed Proposition 22
by enacting AB 205."
The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from
amending or repealing a voter initiative without the
consent of the voters, so the struggle between the two
initiatives will continue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: For updates on efforts to pass
Defense of Marriage Acts around the country visit
www.domawatch.org
----- 11 -----
Focus on the Family
5 April 2005
Connecticut Senate Considers Civil-Unions Bill
The Connecticut Senate is poised to approve a civil-unions
bill Wednesday. SB 963 would create civil unions in
Connecticut with the same rights and benefits of marriage.
If the bill is approved, same-sex marriage is just a short
step away. Marriage in Connecticut must be protected, but
a bill to send a marriage-protection amendment to the
ballot is being stalled in the Legislature, while this
civil-unions bill advances.
A Harris Poll conducted this February found that 78
percent of Connecticut's voters believe that marriage is
the union of a man and woman and 76 percent want to vote
on an amendment to protect the traditional definition of
marriage.
TAKE ACTION: If you live in Connecticut, please contact
your state senator and urge him or her to oppose SB 963
and support the marriage-protection amendment -- tell your
senator you want the opportunity to vote on marriage. For
contact information, please visit our CitizenLink Action
Center and enter your ZIP code.
----- 12 -----
Donation Limits Debated in Alabama
Focus on the Family
April 4, 2005
Vote could come as early as Tuesday.
http://family.org/cforum/statenews/a0036086.cfm
The Alabama Senate will vote Tuesday on a bill that would require organizations that work to influence the outcome of legislation to disclose the names of their donors — whether or not those donations were made in support of lobbying activity.
The increased reporting requirements have the potential to harm pro-family groups — and others — across the state. Under HB 75, donors would no longer be protected from public scrutiny.
This legislation will discourage groups from informing private citizens about legislation pending and urge them to make their views know to their legislators.
TAKE ACTION
If you live in Alabama, please contact your senator and let him or her know you oppose HB 75. A vote is expected Tuesday, so don't delay. For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
----- 13 -----
Focus on the Family Urges End of Judicial Filibusters
by Sonja Swiatkiewicz, contributing editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Ministry signs on to letter decrying liberal
obstructionism as "an unconscionable shirking of 'advice
and consent' duty."
Focus on the Family today joined nearly 200 groups in
calling for an end to judicial filibusters and a return to
Senate tradition.
In a letter to U.S. senators, Focus on the Family and the
other signatories "call on the Senate Leadership and the
Republican Majority to end the filibusters on appellate
nominees and well before a Supreme Court vacancy occurs."
"We believe that generations of Americans are called at
moments to lay foundations for the future, and that this
is one such moment," the letter states.
From the beginning of our nation, the Founders
established a government in which the three branches have
the ability and the responsibility to check each other.
The judicial branch is "subject to a written Constitution
and the checks and balances of the other branches that it
prescribes."
Unfortunately, our country is again seeing a judicial
crisis -- one in which the legislative branch is failing
to fulfill its constitutional duty of confirming the
president's judicial nominees. These nominees, being
opposed by Senate Democrats through judicial filibusters
that require 60 votes to end, certainly have the majority
support needed to be confirmed if only allowed an
up-or-down vote.
"Now the Minority has changed 215 years of Senate
tradition by abusing the filibuster for the first time
against nominees with clear majority support," the letter
continues. "We call for a restoration of Senate
traditions, returning to the majority vote on Advice and
Consent the Constitution mandates."
"Today's filibuster crisis is an unconscionable shirking
of the 'advice and consent' duty of the Senate," said Dr.
James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "The
president -- and indeed, the American people -- are
entitled to see the men and women nominated to federal
courts be voted on by the full Senate. These Senate
Democrats, who just a few years ago deplored the hijacking
of the confirmation process by filibuster, must end this
partisan blockade and fulfill their constitutional duty."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To view the entire letter and its
signatories, click on the link below:
www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/coalitionletter.pdf
