![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdSomething's going on and I don't know what it is, and I hate that. Seriously, something has to be up and I'm missing it and I don't know what it is. Judge Roberts today talked about how there's a right to privacy in the US Constitution and how you can't overturn a previous decision solely because you didn't like how it was argued and how he still considers Roe v. Wade to be settled precedent, and he says that if he'd found his Amendment 2 work morally objectionable, he wouldn't have done it - and the fundamentalists still have all guns out on his behalf.
Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America is talking about a 10-year campaign to build pressure for mass impeachments on the Federal and State courts, entirely based on rulings against anti-gay law. (They talk about the Massachusetts marriage case and Lawrence v. Evans, but interestingly, it was the Amendment 2 equal-protection case, Bowers vs. Hardwick, which got the movement started, according to them.) Yet they're agitating stridently and continually for someone who worked against them on one of those very cases, and has declared himself (through his press agent) a Constitutionalist instead of a strict Constructionist, which is not the same thing...
What am I missing? Something's going down and I'm not in on it, and it's bugging me. Seriously. What's going on? Something is. I just don't know what.
Meanwhile, here are the stories:
"Faith and Freedom Network" has started a fundraiser to raise money for an anti-marriage, anti-civil unions political campaign in Washington State;
Vatican decides: gay people cannot be part of the seminary system, regardless of celibacy - previously, your sexual orientation didn't matter if you were celibate, since everyone had to be the same way, so this is a significant change;
Roberts: would have refused participation in the lawsuit against Colorado's Amendment 2 (Romer v. Evans) if he found the work "morally objectionable"; also states the Constitution supports a right to privacy; this from Focus on the Family;
FotF complains about California bill to on morning-after pill dispensing at pharmacies; their article is confusing so I'm unsure about the bill's actual text;
FotF: emergency-contraception fights in Illinois, fundamentalist group brings lawsuit against the state;
FotF: Arizona State University recognises Christian club that at least formerly had religious requirements for officeholders - I don't know whether that's still the case or not;
President Bush assigns anti-abortion doctor to bioethics board - Focus on the Family praises him as a solid conservative;
National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools campaigning for classes on the bible nationally in public schools;
Anti-abortion groups in the UK upset about development of "embryos" from egg cells only, calls it "Frankenstein science," a term that's picked up favour in recent weeks;
FotF upset at fertility treatment in the UK;
CWA continues to push Roberts for the Supreme Court - Press Release supporting him;
Pro-Life News reports on Roberts's statement that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution and that he respects precedent and that it's not enough to think a decision was badly decided to overturn it if it's a longstanding precedent - but continue to reassure their readers that he would overturn Roe v. Wade if given a chance; wtf is going on here?;
:::: NOTE THIS ONE: CWA talks about "cleaning up the judiciary" via mass impeachments - every example they give is anti-GBLT (Amendment 2, Lawrence v. Texas, the Massachusetts case legalising marriage rights for gayfolk) - and they talk about a 10-year programme to build support;
Traditional Values Coalition continues pushing hard for John Roberts to be confirmed - top article features pro-Roberts TVC protesters carrying pro-Roberts signs and "OVERTURN ROE" signs. Meanwhile, his press agent issues a statement calling him a Constitutionalist, which is not the same thing as a Constructionist and not nearly as compatible with the fundamentalist demands. My big question is, what are people being told? The pieces are not adding up here, and despite my research, I can't find out what's going on. Stuff like this sends up red flags but I can not get a handle on what those flags are indicating.
----- 1 -----
Faith and Freedom Network
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman
Gary Randall, President
September 1, 2005
[Received in paper mail; no URL]
Dear Friends of Faith and Freedom:
As you know, traditional values are under attack as never before. Particularly here in the Northwest.
Those who are pushing for gay marriage are not a majority, yet they are exerting a great deal of influence because of their deep commitment to their cause. We see this playing out on every front of the cultural war that is being fought for the very soul of our communities.
Nowhere is the battle more evident than right here in Washington State.
As you know, we are awaiting a ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. That ruling should come within the next few weeks.
Our Chairman, Joe Fuiten, and I do not expect the ruling to favor traditional marriage, which is between one man and one woman.
If the Court rules against traditional marriage and in favor of gay marriage, we will immediately engage in a campaign to amend the State Constitution.
If they rule in favor of traditional marriage, the gay-rights activists have already announced that they will immediately begin the push for civil unions, as they have done in Oregon.
Civil unions are simply gay marriage by another name.
In either case, we are preparing for the battle, which surely lies ahead.
We are greatly accelerating our efforts in expanding our network of volunteers, and pastors, who will help deliver the message to elected officials in Olympia as circumstances dictate and who will actively participate with us in voter registration.
This battle will require media ads on both radio and television.
Often we people of faith tend to react to abuses of traditional values, rather than prepare for the battle in advance.
We intend to be at the forefront of this momentous struggle, believing that like-minded people will join us and help pay the costs once the battle begins.
This is a spiritual battle as well as a cultural battle. We are asking that you pray for us.
It is a costly battle. We cannot win without financial strength.
When Joe Fuiten and this organization led the May Day for marriage event in Olympia with nearly 10,000 in attendance, people stepped up and helped pay the costs over a number of months following the events.
This is a spiritual battle as well as a cultural battle. We are asking that you pray for us. [Transcriber note: Repeated paragraph is as in original]
While many will step up later, we need some people who believe in traditional, Judeo Christian values and who understand the need to prepare for the battle, to help us now.
We know you understand the principle of preparation. It is a biblical principle. The Lord, speaking to Joshua after Moses had died said, "now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River ..." (Joshua 1:2)
Would you help us "get ready?"
We intend to stay the course for the duration of this battle. Others will join in to help us sustain our efforts, but in order to be fully engaged from the beginning we need those of you who are part of Faith and Freedom Network to help us now.
We feel we need to raise about $250,000 up front in order to prevail, because this will not be a one-time event but rather a sustained effort over a number of months.
Washington is usually characterized as a "liberal" state and according to most elections, this would be true. A majority usually votes for liberal candidates and issues in statewide elections.
However, I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's words. He said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."
Your participation is deeply needed now. We can prevail, but we won't unless we act.
We have enclosed an addressed envelope for your convenience.
Thank you for your prayerful consideration.
God Bless You,
Gary Randall
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten
----- 2 -----
NOT EVEN WHEN CELIBATE
Andrew Sullivan
September 11th, 2005
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_09_11_dish_archive.html#112662720122725990
NOT EVEN WHEN CELIBATE: The Vatican document will appear probably by the end of the year, but it appears that the decision has been made. The key point-man for reform of seminaries in the U.S., Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, has now made it clear that, in his words,
"I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary." ... Archbishop O'Brien, who is coordinating the visits to more than 220 U.S. seminaries and houses of formation, said even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.
The AP version of the story, where O'Brien prettifies his language, confirms the story. The reason? A response to the appalling clerical abuse of children and minors. Conflating homosexual orientation with pedophilia, and arguing that homosexual priests cannot be expected to maintain celibacy or refrain from raping children or minors, even if they have demonstrated such an ability for up to a decade or more, O'Brien takes the Catholic Church's pretzel-like position on homosexuality to a new level of incoherence. Notice that what is being discriminated against here is not someone's actions or behavior, but their very identity. Notice that the church is implying complete lack of self-control to all gay priests, regardless of their record or potential. Notice that in 1986, the Church officially rebutted the idea that gay men, let alone gay priests, cannot be expected to be celibate, let alone molest children. The notion that all gay men are sexually compulsive was, in the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, an "unfounded and demeaning assumption." That "unfounded and demeaning assumption" is now church policy.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
The Umpire Strikes Back
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037916.cfm
SUMMARY: The gloves came off, as day two of Judge John
Roberts' Senate confirmation hearings got underway.
President George W. Bush's nominee for chief justice of
the United States, responded to questions put to him
Tuesday by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a
number of important issues, including abortion, voting
rights and the role of following previous precedents --
known by lawyers as "stare decisis."
Sometimes he answered directly, sometimes he deferred, and
sometimes the man who yesterday described himself as a
judicial "umpire," struck back.
"He is handling himself like a consummate professional,"
said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the
Family Action. "He gets intense on some of the answers,
and he clearly wants to explain some of his positions --
especially in the face of some of the harassment he's
facing at the hands of Sens. Kennedy and Biden."
[...]
For example, when Kennedy tried to browbeat Roberts about
his position on a 20-year-old civil rights case involving
Grove City College, Roberts fired back against Kennedy's
misstatements:
* * *
KENNEDY (at the end of a very long question): Do you still
believe today that it is too onerous for the government to
require universities that accept tuition payments from
students who rely on federal grants and loans not to
discriminate in any of their programs or activities?
ROBERTS: No, Senator, and I did not back then. You have
not accurately represented my position . . .
KENNEDY (interrupting): These are your words…
CHAIRMAN SPECTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute! Senator
Kennedy (you) just propounded a very, very long question.
Now, let him answer the question.
* * *
Pro-family legal experts, like Ken Connor, an attorney
with one of the nation's top law firms, said Roberts was
impressive in the face of fire. Kennedy, as Connor pointed
out, "was just being Kennedy."
"He demagogues when it suits his purposes," said Connor,
who is also president of the Center for a Just Society,
"and when his demagoguery is exposed as being nothing more
than false accusation and appeals to prejudice, he's just
left to harrumph."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, who has himself
testified before Kennedy, said he thought the
interrogation was relatively mild, compared to the usual
tactics Kennedy employs.
[...]
Bauer said it's no secret in Washington, D.C., that Biden
is weighing a possible bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2008.
"Any time a senator from either party is thinking about
that decision, you can look for them to do things to
appeal to their base," Bauer said. "In Sen. Biden's case
he sees the pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights groups as the
base he has to appeal to, And in my view, he was
attempting to stand out today in the toughness of his
questioning, and, frankly, how insulting he could be to
Judge Roberts."
Both Biden and Kennedy, he noted, had to be admonished
several times by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen
Specter, R-Pa., not to interrupt the nominee while he was
answering.
Bauer said he was impressed by that -- and told Specter so
during a break in the hearings.
"Conservatives and pro-family advocates have had many
disagreements with Sen. Specter," Bauer told CitizenLink,
"but he generally has a reputation for fairness, and today
he showed that by not allowing Senator Kennedy to take
over the committee hearing and browbeat Judge Roberts, who
was testifying."
Roberts did answer some important questions while dodging
attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting
rights and other legal issues.
In response to questions from Specter, he said he felt the
landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a
precedent'' and that the Constitution does provide a right
to privacy, although he cited parts of the Constitution
apart from the imagined right to privacy found in the Roe
v. Wade decision.
And he was careful not to say that it provides a right to
abortion.
He also responded to a question by Specter about his
pro-bono participation helping gay activists frame their
arguments in Romer v. Evans, the case which overturned a
Colorado constitutional amendment barring homosexuals from
receiving special privileges.
Specter quoted from Walter Smith, the lawyer at Roberts'
former law firm, who had said in a memo he thought Roberts
would have turned down the charity work if it had offended
him to be part of it.
Roberts answered: "I was asked frequently by other
partners to help out, particularly in my area of
expertise. It often involved 'moot courting.' I never
turned down a request. I think it's right, that if there
had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I
would have. It was my view that lawyers don't stand in the
shoes of their clients, and that good lawyers can give
advice and argue any side of a case. . ."
Hausknecht, who said we need to hear more to know exactly
what he's saying, was willing to give Roberts the benefit
of the doubt.
"On the one hand, he apparently didn't find the Romer case
morally objectionable; at least not enough that he would
disqualify himself from participating in that
pro-gay-rights case," Hausknecht said, "On the other hand,
knowing lawyers, even a constitutional argument on an
issue they don't agree with would not rise to the morally
objectionable level, in most cases. They are too
interested in the constitutional questions involved -- and
they like a good case and argument."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Golden State Pharmacists May be Forced to Dispense Morning-After Pill
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The California Legislature has passed a bill that would
require pharmacists to let their employers know upfront
that they will refuse to dispense the so-called
morning-after pill, or else lose the right to refuse
later.
California Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, sponsored the
law that she claims was an effort to provide choice. But
comments from her spokeswoman, Hallye Jordan, reveal that
choice for pharmacists is not in the equation.
"Senate Bill 644 was prompted by reports of women in
California who had been seeking emergency contraceptives,"
she said, "but were turned away by pharmacists who
objected to dispensing the contraceptives."
Carol Hogan, associate director for communications and
pastoral projects at the California Catholic Conference,
told Family News in Focus the state has already gone
around the FDA and made the morning-after pill available
over the counter, but abortion groups want everyone
involved in dispensing it.
"Either the pharmacist would have another person willing
to do it," she said, "or the person with the objection
would be forced to do it in order to keep their job."
----- 5 -----
Illinois Pharmacists Object to Morning-After Pill
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Americans United for Life (AUL) is filing a lawsuit
against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich over his
now-permanent rule requiring pharmacies to dispense the
morning-after pill "without delay."
AUL represents five Illinois pharmacies. Each of the
owners is asserting their right under the Illinois Right
of Conscience Act to opt out of selling or dispensing
drugs they find to be morally objectionable.
----- 6 -----
Arizona State University Allows Christian Group
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Arizona State University (ASU) will allow the Christian
Legal Society (CLS) to meet on campus as a recognized
student group. According to Agape Press, the CLS was
accused of violating the school's "non-discrimination"
policy by selecting leaders who were Christian.
[Ed. Note: the religious affiliation was a _requirement_
for leadership positions. State rules required that
recognised clubs adopt the anti-discrimination policies,
including religious discrimination policies. I don't know
what's changed here - whether the club changed its
policy or the school gave in on the suit.]
The student group filed a lawsuit and ASU lawyers
reinstated the Society. Several other campus officials
have tried to limit Christian groups from having official
status as a recognized student organization. The CLS has
filed several suits to regain official recognition at
universities around the nation.
"We frankly hope that other public universities and
colleges are sitting up and taking notice that when they
violate First Amendment rights. . . they're going to be
challenged," Steve Aden, CLS chief litigation counsel,
said. "And we are willing to take these matters to court
and press them as hard as we possibly can."
----- 7 -----
Bush Appoints New Bioethics Czar
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037896.cfm
SUMMARY: Supporters and critics praise the selection.
The President's Council on Bioethics will have a new
chairman on Oct. 1: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino.
Dr. Leon Kass is stepping down after serving a four-year
term. He cited a growing workload for his departure.
Pellegrino is a highly respected Catholic ethicist and
professor emeritus of medicine and medical ethics at
Georgetown University Medical Center. He is a senior
researcher scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and
adjunct professor of philosophy at Georgetown University.
He's written more than 500 peer-reviewed articles.
"I am honored," Pellegrino said. "The Council has set a
very high bar in addressing many of the serious bioethical
issues before our country."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus
on the Family Action, said Pellegrino is the right person
to take the reins.
"Dr. Pellegrino is a solid pro-life academic who is well
respected by all in the medical community," she said. "His
application of clear and sensible ethics has guided many
medical professionals. His appointment to chair the
Council is an excellent one."
Though Pellegrino is considered conservative, many
opposing his opinions have praised his appointment to the
chair.
Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics
Institute and editor in chief of the American Journal of
Bioethics, is no fan of the administration, but applauded
Pellegrino's promotion.
"There are not a lot of straight political issues that I'd
agree with Dr. Pellegrino on," he said. "But all of us owe
a debt to him. President Bush was sorely in need of a good
decision and this was one. Pellegrino will engage everyone
in the debate and bring integrity to the position."
Arthur Caplan, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics
at the University of Pennsylvania, is no conservative when
it comes to bioethics. But he called Pellegrino an
experienced manager.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
GROUP ENCOURAGES PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO TEACH BIBLE
Bible curriculum is legal, but many school administrators are unaware.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037887.cfm
The National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public
Schools (NCBCPS) has released new course work for the
classroom and has started a national campaign to get it
placed in schools. Family News in Focus reported that many
public school teachers and administrators still think any
mention of the Bible is banned by law.
Nancy Ridenour, president of NCBCPS, said the curriculum
is designed to be an elective course, designed to equip
students with a fundamental understanding of the literary
and historical value of the Bible.
"The program is concerned with education rather than
indoctrination of students," she said. "The central
approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a
foundation document of society, and that approach is
altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of
secular education."
Steve Crampton, an attorney for the American Family
Association, said the Supreme Court has never banned
teaching the Bible in public schools. He listed four
reasons schools should offer the course.
"First, people want it. Second, our children need it.
Third, schools actually like it, believe it or not. And
fourth, the laws allow it," he said.
Alveda King, civil rights activist and niece of Martin
Luther King, Jr., said to deny the Bible curriculum in
public schools is unfair to children.
"In the African-American community where literacy remains
a very important issue, it is only fair that the Bible
curriculum be included," she said.
Actor Chuck Norris, who uses martial arts as an opening to
teach children about moral character, said teaching the
Bible gives kids a better choice.
"That choice can lead you down a positive path or a
negative path and that will make the decision whether you
are a success or a failure in life," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Embryos Created Using Egg Alone
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The Roslin Institute in the United Kingdom announced
Friday the creation of a human embryo using a technique
that does not use any genetic material from a male, BBC
News reported.
The technique, called parthenogenesis, stimulates a human
egg to start dividing just like the early stages of
development in a fertilized egg. Once the parthenotes, as
they're called, reach a certain stage of development, they
are used for the extraction of stem cells.
While some scientists say the technique is an ethical way
to obtain stem cells than using normal, fertilized
embryos, others disagree.
Matthew O'Gorman, of Life, a pro-life charity in the UK,
said Friday's announcement was disheartening.
"It is another example of Frankenstein science," O'Gorman
said, "which illustrates how out of touch with public
opinion these recent scientific developments are."
Josephine Quintavalle, spokeswomen for Comment of
Reproductive Ethics, said it is time for the government to
put a moratorium on licenses for embryo research.
"We know so little about the mechanics of embryology,"
Quintavalle said. "These are very big steps, indeed, and
the whole area is running completely out of control."
Quintavalle said scientists should concentrate on adult
stem cells, such as those harvested from umbilical cords,
because they are already providing cures and have no
ethical problems.
----- 10 -----
One Child - Two Mothers
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
9 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The British government has given the go-ahead for
scientists to create a human embryo with genetic material
from two women. The Associated Press reported the
Newcastle University experiment will transfer the
pro-nuclei -- parts of the nucleus of an embryo -- from a
man and woman into an unfertilized egg from another woman.
The goal of the procedure is to prevent mothers from
passing certain genetic diseases to their pre-born babies.
The license to perform the research was granted by British
officials after 18 months of hearings and deliberation.
The government passed regulations on genetic engineering
in humans in 1990, but the laws did not apply to this
situation.
While the research may not technically constitute human
cloning, Dr. Reginald Finger, medical issues analyst for
Focus on the Family, said, "The technique leaves several
crucial bioethics issues at an impasse."
He added that the failure rate for such experiments means
many human lives will be destroyed in the process.
----- 11 -----
Roberts Does Not Waver, Despite Baseless Left Demands
Concerned Women for America
9/13/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8934/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Washington, D.C. –– Concerned Women for America (CWA) praised John Roberts’ dignified answers to some very inappropriate questioning today.
The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Roberts today on such issues as abortion, civil rights, judicial activism and the role of the Constitution. Despite the many inappropriate questions thrust at him, Roberts held to his convictions and answered only those questions which would not conflict with his presumed role of Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) today raised questions about Judge John Roberts’ faith as it would relate to his service as chief justice of the Supreme Court. “Her questions slyly implied that a Christian would have difficulty filling that position,” commented Wendy Wright, CWA’s Executive Vice President. “It is precisely this kind of anti-Christian religious litmus test that many Americans find deeply offensive. Our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian principles which have made it one of the freest nations in the world. Feinstein is dipping her toe into the very ugly, muddy waters of religious bigotry. America’s Founding Fathers considered religious beliefs to be an asset, even essential to public officeholders. Sadly, Sen. Feinstein apparently believes the opposite of those wise men to whom we owe gratitude for our free and strong country.”
Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel, commented, “We firmly believe that Judge Roberts’ statements and opinions demonstrate his unequivocal belief in and deference to the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. As the nation’s largest women's public policy organization, we believe that Judge Roberts’ expressed positions on gender equality, comparable worth and other so-called women’s issues are entirely consistent with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.”
----- 12 -----
John Roberts Talks About Abortion During Senate Judiciary Hearing
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 13, 2005
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1611.html
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wasted little time in firing questions about abortion at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Though he discussed abortion from several legal angles, Roberts declined to give his opinion on the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that ushered in an era of 44 million abortions and, though he discussed it.
"I should not, based on the precedent of prior nominees, agree or disagree with particular decisions and I'm reluctant to do that," Roberts said. "That's one of the areas, I think, prior nominees have drawn the line."
[...]
"I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent ... It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided," Roberts said.
Roberts told the panel that Roe v. Wade is entitled to some measure of respect because it is a long-standing decision.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," -- the judicial notion that long-standing decisions deserve additional respect.
That notion is usually applied at the lower court levels with supporters of the concept saying only the Supreme Court should overturn such significant precedents. The current Supreme Court has been willing to overturn precedents on various issues and nothing in Roberts' comments indicates he would not overturn Roe if given the opportunity.
However, Roberts also referred to a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood as a precedent-setting case as well. Though the high court upheld Roe, it also paved the way for states to pass a plethora of laws limiting abortions.
Roberts, named by President Bush to replace pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of two dissenters in Roe, said he supports the notion of a right to privacy. However, it again provided no indication as to whether he thought that right included a right to abortion.
He said the right to privacy is found in the Constitution "in various ways," including the First, Third and Fourth amendments.
[...]
Pro-life groups say they're confident Roberts will uphold COnstitutional principles, which don't show any right to abortion in the founding document.
"Judge John Roberts has shown a deep respect for the Constitution and in his personal and professional life exhibits the primary lesson that comes from religion--honoring a higher authority above one's own desires, opinions or preference," says Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Cleaning Up the Judiciary
Concerned Women for America
9/13/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8926&department=CWA&categoryid=misc
As the Roberts confirmation battle illustrates, getting judges on the bench who will interpret rather than create law can be long process. And given their lifetime appointments to the bench, the chance to make changes comes along far too infrequently. Is there another way? Steve Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation joins Bob Knight, head of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute says yes. He has researched the issue of impeachment. Click here to listen.
[Robert Knight and Steve Fitschen: Steve: We... created a little bit of a controversy a few years ago when we began to advocate that judges who render unconstitutional decisions should be impeached... if you are not faithful to the Constitution, you are usurping power, you are destroying the separation of power, you are really stealing the sovereignty of the people." Notes that there isn't a lot of interest in that. "I think they've bought into the myth that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says." Talks about judges being "out of control," particularly on the 9th Circuit. "The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit... so that's certainly an example. We've launched this modern impeachment movement in response to the Amendment 2 case, where [Ed: Holy Crap! This all comes out of Amendment 2!] Justice Kennedy... said that, 'If you think that homosexuals should not have special rights, you are a hate monger... the only basis for this decision is animus... and that's what launched the movement."
Robert Knight also condemns Lawrence v. Texas as being an impeachable offense. Fitschen talks about impeaching five Supreme Court justices in this context.
Robert Knight brings up the Massachusetts case legalising marriage rights for same-sex couples; asked if this is an impeachable offense, Fitschen says, "absolutely," while adding that they're still doing research into building an impeachment movement at the state level.
Fitschen: "The mere threat of impeachment would have a very positive impact, and that simply letting the judges know this could happen to them if they cross the line is a good thing... when you see someone like Justice Kennedy... who have a pattern of usurpation, a pattern of tyranny, then they're a good target."
Fitschen talks more about impeaching the majority of the Supreme Court. "It's going to take public outcry... I cannot imagine Congress doing it any time soon. But two years, three years, four years... what if it takes 10 years?" "It is corruption to refuse to impeach someone who deserves to be impeached," arguing that if you don't impeach the judges they want impeached, you are corrupt and supporting tyranny.]
----- 14 -----
Judge John Roberts Deserves Fair Up Or Down Vote In The Senate!
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release September 12, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2423
Washington, DC – Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Mrs. Andrea Lafferty issued the following statement on behalf of Judge John Roberts today:
“President Bush has made a courageous move in picking Judge John Roberts to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. This decision is historic and clearly signals the President’s firm commitment to Constitutionalism.
“Judge Roberts’ writings reveal him to be a man of temperance, restraint, and thoughtfulness. He has publicly stated his judicial philosophy. He believes judges are to interpret the law, not create law. He has respect for the two other branches of government, and he understands that each branch has its role in our Republican form of government. If only other federal judges had such a clear understanding of their role.
“In short, Judge Roberts is a Constitutionalist who understands that judges are not legislators nor are they in charge of the executive branch of government. This is not an extremist position. A survey of the Federalist Papers will reveal similar thoughts from our nation’s Founding Fathers.
[More, particularly captioned pictures, at URL]
[Note: a Constitutionalist is _not the same thing as_ a Constructionist, much less a Strict Constructionalist. What the fuck is going on here? Seriously? WTF?]
Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America is talking about a 10-year campaign to build pressure for mass impeachments on the Federal and State courts, entirely based on rulings against anti-gay law. (They talk about the Massachusetts marriage case and Lawrence v. Evans, but interestingly, it was the Amendment 2 equal-protection case, Bowers vs. Hardwick, which got the movement started, according to them.) Yet they're agitating stridently and continually for someone who worked against them on one of those very cases, and has declared himself (through his press agent) a Constitutionalist instead of a strict Constructionist, which is not the same thing...
What am I missing? Something's going down and I'm not in on it, and it's bugging me. Seriously. What's going on? Something is. I just don't know what.
Meanwhile, here are the stories:
"Faith and Freedom Network" has started a fundraiser to raise money for an anti-marriage, anti-civil unions political campaign in Washington State;
Vatican decides: gay people cannot be part of the seminary system, regardless of celibacy - previously, your sexual orientation didn't matter if you were celibate, since everyone had to be the same way, so this is a significant change;
Roberts: would have refused participation in the lawsuit against Colorado's Amendment 2 (Romer v. Evans) if he found the work "morally objectionable"; also states the Constitution supports a right to privacy; this from Focus on the Family;
FotF complains about California bill to on morning-after pill dispensing at pharmacies; their article is confusing so I'm unsure about the bill's actual text;
FotF: emergency-contraception fights in Illinois, fundamentalist group brings lawsuit against the state;
FotF: Arizona State University recognises Christian club that at least formerly had religious requirements for officeholders - I don't know whether that's still the case or not;
President Bush assigns anti-abortion doctor to bioethics board - Focus on the Family praises him as a solid conservative;
National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools campaigning for classes on the bible nationally in public schools;
Anti-abortion groups in the UK upset about development of "embryos" from egg cells only, calls it "Frankenstein science," a term that's picked up favour in recent weeks;
FotF upset at fertility treatment in the UK;
CWA continues to push Roberts for the Supreme Court - Press Release supporting him;
Pro-Life News reports on Roberts's statement that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution and that he respects precedent and that it's not enough to think a decision was badly decided to overturn it if it's a longstanding precedent - but continue to reassure their readers that he would overturn Roe v. Wade if given a chance; wtf is going on here?;
:::: NOTE THIS ONE: CWA talks about "cleaning up the judiciary" via mass impeachments - every example they give is anti-GBLT (Amendment 2, Lawrence v. Texas, the Massachusetts case legalising marriage rights for gayfolk) - and they talk about a 10-year programme to build support;
Traditional Values Coalition continues pushing hard for John Roberts to be confirmed - top article features pro-Roberts TVC protesters carrying pro-Roberts signs and "OVERTURN ROE" signs. Meanwhile, his press agent issues a statement calling him a Constitutionalist, which is not the same thing as a Constructionist and not nearly as compatible with the fundamentalist demands. My big question is, what are people being told? The pieces are not adding up here, and despite my research, I can't find out what's going on. Stuff like this sends up red flags but I can not get a handle on what those flags are indicating.
----- 1 -----
Faith and Freedom Network
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman
Gary Randall, President
September 1, 2005
[Received in paper mail; no URL]
Dear Friends of Faith and Freedom:
As you know, traditional values are under attack as never before. Particularly here in the Northwest.
Those who are pushing for gay marriage are not a majority, yet they are exerting a great deal of influence because of their deep commitment to their cause. We see this playing out on every front of the cultural war that is being fought for the very soul of our communities.
Nowhere is the battle more evident than right here in Washington State.
As you know, we are awaiting a ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. That ruling should come within the next few weeks.
Our Chairman, Joe Fuiten, and I do not expect the ruling to favor traditional marriage, which is between one man and one woman.
If the Court rules against traditional marriage and in favor of gay marriage, we will immediately engage in a campaign to amend the State Constitution.
If they rule in favor of traditional marriage, the gay-rights activists have already announced that they will immediately begin the push for civil unions, as they have done in Oregon.
Civil unions are simply gay marriage by another name.
In either case, we are preparing for the battle, which surely lies ahead.
We are greatly accelerating our efforts in expanding our network of volunteers, and pastors, who will help deliver the message to elected officials in Olympia as circumstances dictate and who will actively participate with us in voter registration.
This battle will require media ads on both radio and television.
Often we people of faith tend to react to abuses of traditional values, rather than prepare for the battle in advance.
We intend to be at the forefront of this momentous struggle, believing that like-minded people will join us and help pay the costs once the battle begins.
This is a spiritual battle as well as a cultural battle. We are asking that you pray for us.
It is a costly battle. We cannot win without financial strength.
When Joe Fuiten and this organization led the May Day for marriage event in Olympia with nearly 10,000 in attendance, people stepped up and helped pay the costs over a number of months following the events.
This is a spiritual battle as well as a cultural battle. We are asking that you pray for us. [Transcriber note: Repeated paragraph is as in original]
While many will step up later, we need some people who believe in traditional, Judeo Christian values and who understand the need to prepare for the battle, to help us now.
We know you understand the principle of preparation. It is a biblical principle. The Lord, speaking to Joshua after Moses had died said, "now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River ..." (Joshua 1:2)
Would you help us "get ready?"
We intend to stay the course for the duration of this battle. Others will join in to help us sustain our efforts, but in order to be fully engaged from the beginning we need those of you who are part of Faith and Freedom Network to help us now.
We feel we need to raise about $250,000 up front in order to prevail, because this will not be a one-time event but rather a sustained effort over a number of months.
Washington is usually characterized as a "liberal" state and according to most elections, this would be true. A majority usually votes for liberal candidates and issues in statewide elections.
However, I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's words. He said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."
Your participation is deeply needed now. We can prevail, but we won't unless we act.
We have enclosed an addressed envelope for your convenience.
Thank you for your prayerful consideration.
God Bless You,
Gary Randall
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten
----- 2 -----
NOT EVEN WHEN CELIBATE
Andrew Sullivan
September 11th, 2005
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_09_11_dish_archive.html#112662720122725990
NOT EVEN WHEN CELIBATE: The Vatican document will appear probably by the end of the year, but it appears that the decision has been made. The key point-man for reform of seminaries in the U.S., Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, has now made it clear that, in his words,
"I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary." ... Archbishop O'Brien, who is coordinating the visits to more than 220 U.S. seminaries and houses of formation, said even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.
The AP version of the story, where O'Brien prettifies his language, confirms the story. The reason? A response to the appalling clerical abuse of children and minors. Conflating homosexual orientation with pedophilia, and arguing that homosexual priests cannot be expected to maintain celibacy or refrain from raping children or minors, even if they have demonstrated such an ability for up to a decade or more, O'Brien takes the Catholic Church's pretzel-like position on homosexuality to a new level of incoherence. Notice that what is being discriminated against here is not someone's actions or behavior, but their very identity. Notice that the church is implying complete lack of self-control to all gay priests, regardless of their record or potential. Notice that in 1986, the Church officially rebutted the idea that gay men, let alone gay priests, cannot be expected to be celibate, let alone molest children. The notion that all gay men are sexually compulsive was, in the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, an "unfounded and demeaning assumption." That "unfounded and demeaning assumption" is now church policy.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
The Umpire Strikes Back
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037916.cfm
SUMMARY: The gloves came off, as day two of Judge John
Roberts' Senate confirmation hearings got underway.
President George W. Bush's nominee for chief justice of
the United States, responded to questions put to him
Tuesday by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a
number of important issues, including abortion, voting
rights and the role of following previous precedents --
known by lawyers as "stare decisis."
Sometimes he answered directly, sometimes he deferred, and
sometimes the man who yesterday described himself as a
judicial "umpire," struck back.
"He is handling himself like a consummate professional,"
said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the
Family Action. "He gets intense on some of the answers,
and he clearly wants to explain some of his positions --
especially in the face of some of the harassment he's
facing at the hands of Sens. Kennedy and Biden."
[...]
For example, when Kennedy tried to browbeat Roberts about
his position on a 20-year-old civil rights case involving
Grove City College, Roberts fired back against Kennedy's
misstatements:
* * *
KENNEDY (at the end of a very long question): Do you still
believe today that it is too onerous for the government to
require universities that accept tuition payments from
students who rely on federal grants and loans not to
discriminate in any of their programs or activities?
ROBERTS: No, Senator, and I did not back then. You have
not accurately represented my position . . .
KENNEDY (interrupting): These are your words…
CHAIRMAN SPECTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute! Senator
Kennedy (you) just propounded a very, very long question.
Now, let him answer the question.
* * *
Pro-family legal experts, like Ken Connor, an attorney
with one of the nation's top law firms, said Roberts was
impressive in the face of fire. Kennedy, as Connor pointed
out, "was just being Kennedy."
"He demagogues when it suits his purposes," said Connor,
who is also president of the Center for a Just Society,
"and when his demagoguery is exposed as being nothing more
than false accusation and appeals to prejudice, he's just
left to harrumph."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, who has himself
testified before Kennedy, said he thought the
interrogation was relatively mild, compared to the usual
tactics Kennedy employs.
[...]
Bauer said it's no secret in Washington, D.C., that Biden
is weighing a possible bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2008.
"Any time a senator from either party is thinking about
that decision, you can look for them to do things to
appeal to their base," Bauer said. "In Sen. Biden's case
he sees the pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights groups as the
base he has to appeal to, And in my view, he was
attempting to stand out today in the toughness of his
questioning, and, frankly, how insulting he could be to
Judge Roberts."
Both Biden and Kennedy, he noted, had to be admonished
several times by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen
Specter, R-Pa., not to interrupt the nominee while he was
answering.
Bauer said he was impressed by that -- and told Specter so
during a break in the hearings.
"Conservatives and pro-family advocates have had many
disagreements with Sen. Specter," Bauer told CitizenLink,
"but he generally has a reputation for fairness, and today
he showed that by not allowing Senator Kennedy to take
over the committee hearing and browbeat Judge Roberts, who
was testifying."
Roberts did answer some important questions while dodging
attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting
rights and other legal issues.
In response to questions from Specter, he said he felt the
landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a
precedent'' and that the Constitution does provide a right
to privacy, although he cited parts of the Constitution
apart from the imagined right to privacy found in the Roe
v. Wade decision.
And he was careful not to say that it provides a right to
abortion.
He also responded to a question by Specter about his
pro-bono participation helping gay activists frame their
arguments in Romer v. Evans, the case which overturned a
Colorado constitutional amendment barring homosexuals from
receiving special privileges.
Specter quoted from Walter Smith, the lawyer at Roberts'
former law firm, who had said in a memo he thought Roberts
would have turned down the charity work if it had offended
him to be part of it.
Roberts answered: "I was asked frequently by other
partners to help out, particularly in my area of
expertise. It often involved 'moot courting.' I never
turned down a request. I think it's right, that if there
had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I
would have. It was my view that lawyers don't stand in the
shoes of their clients, and that good lawyers can give
advice and argue any side of a case. . ."
Hausknecht, who said we need to hear more to know exactly
what he's saying, was willing to give Roberts the benefit
of the doubt.
"On the one hand, he apparently didn't find the Romer case
morally objectionable; at least not enough that he would
disqualify himself from participating in that
pro-gay-rights case," Hausknecht said, "On the other hand,
knowing lawyers, even a constitutional argument on an
issue they don't agree with would not rise to the morally
objectionable level, in most cases. They are too
interested in the constitutional questions involved -- and
they like a good case and argument."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Golden State Pharmacists May be Forced to Dispense Morning-After Pill
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The California Legislature has passed a bill that would
require pharmacists to let their employers know upfront
that they will refuse to dispense the so-called
morning-after pill, or else lose the right to refuse
later.
California Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, sponsored the
law that she claims was an effort to provide choice. But
comments from her spokeswoman, Hallye Jordan, reveal that
choice for pharmacists is not in the equation.
"Senate Bill 644 was prompted by reports of women in
California who had been seeking emergency contraceptives,"
she said, "but were turned away by pharmacists who
objected to dispensing the contraceptives."
Carol Hogan, associate director for communications and
pastoral projects at the California Catholic Conference,
told Family News in Focus the state has already gone
around the FDA and made the morning-after pill available
over the counter, but abortion groups want everyone
involved in dispensing it.
"Either the pharmacist would have another person willing
to do it," she said, "or the person with the objection
would be forced to do it in order to keep their job."
----- 5 -----
Illinois Pharmacists Object to Morning-After Pill
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Americans United for Life (AUL) is filing a lawsuit
against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich over his
now-permanent rule requiring pharmacies to dispense the
morning-after pill "without delay."
AUL represents five Illinois pharmacies. Each of the
owners is asserting their right under the Illinois Right
of Conscience Act to opt out of selling or dispensing
drugs they find to be morally objectionable.
----- 6 -----
Arizona State University Allows Christian Group
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
13 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Arizona State University (ASU) will allow the Christian
Legal Society (CLS) to meet on campus as a recognized
student group. According to Agape Press, the CLS was
accused of violating the school's "non-discrimination"
policy by selecting leaders who were Christian.
[Ed. Note: the religious affiliation was a _requirement_
for leadership positions. State rules required that
recognised clubs adopt the anti-discrimination policies,
including religious discrimination policies. I don't know
what's changed here - whether the club changed its
policy or the school gave in on the suit.]
The student group filed a lawsuit and ASU lawyers
reinstated the Society. Several other campus officials
have tried to limit Christian groups from having official
status as a recognized student organization. The CLS has
filed several suits to regain official recognition at
universities around the nation.
"We frankly hope that other public universities and
colleges are sitting up and taking notice that when they
violate First Amendment rights. . . they're going to be
challenged," Steve Aden, CLS chief litigation counsel,
said. "And we are willing to take these matters to court
and press them as hard as we possibly can."
----- 7 -----
Bush Appoints New Bioethics Czar
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037896.cfm
SUMMARY: Supporters and critics praise the selection.
The President's Council on Bioethics will have a new
chairman on Oct. 1: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino.
Dr. Leon Kass is stepping down after serving a four-year
term. He cited a growing workload for his departure.
Pellegrino is a highly respected Catholic ethicist and
professor emeritus of medicine and medical ethics at
Georgetown University Medical Center. He is a senior
researcher scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and
adjunct professor of philosophy at Georgetown University.
He's written more than 500 peer-reviewed articles.
"I am honored," Pellegrino said. "The Council has set a
very high bar in addressing many of the serious bioethical
issues before our country."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus
on the Family Action, said Pellegrino is the right person
to take the reins.
"Dr. Pellegrino is a solid pro-life academic who is well
respected by all in the medical community," she said. "His
application of clear and sensible ethics has guided many
medical professionals. His appointment to chair the
Council is an excellent one."
Though Pellegrino is considered conservative, many
opposing his opinions have praised his appointment to the
chair.
Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics
Institute and editor in chief of the American Journal of
Bioethics, is no fan of the administration, but applauded
Pellegrino's promotion.
"There are not a lot of straight political issues that I'd
agree with Dr. Pellegrino on," he said. "But all of us owe
a debt to him. President Bush was sorely in need of a good
decision and this was one. Pellegrino will engage everyone
in the debate and bring integrity to the position."
Arthur Caplan, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics
at the University of Pennsylvania, is no conservative when
it comes to bioethics. But he called Pellegrino an
experienced manager.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
GROUP ENCOURAGES PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO TEACH BIBLE
Bible curriculum is legal, but many school administrators are unaware.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037887.cfm
The National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public
Schools (NCBCPS) has released new course work for the
classroom and has started a national campaign to get it
placed in schools. Family News in Focus reported that many
public school teachers and administrators still think any
mention of the Bible is banned by law.
Nancy Ridenour, president of NCBCPS, said the curriculum
is designed to be an elective course, designed to equip
students with a fundamental understanding of the literary
and historical value of the Bible.
"The program is concerned with education rather than
indoctrination of students," she said. "The central
approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a
foundation document of society, and that approach is
altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of
secular education."
Steve Crampton, an attorney for the American Family
Association, said the Supreme Court has never banned
teaching the Bible in public schools. He listed four
reasons schools should offer the course.
"First, people want it. Second, our children need it.
Third, schools actually like it, believe it or not. And
fourth, the laws allow it," he said.
Alveda King, civil rights activist and niece of Martin
Luther King, Jr., said to deny the Bible curriculum in
public schools is unfair to children.
"In the African-American community where literacy remains
a very important issue, it is only fair that the Bible
curriculum be included," she said.
Actor Chuck Norris, who uses martial arts as an opening to
teach children about moral character, said teaching the
Bible gives kids a better choice.
"That choice can lead you down a positive path or a
negative path and that will make the decision whether you
are a success or a failure in life," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Embryos Created Using Egg Alone
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
12 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The Roslin Institute in the United Kingdom announced
Friday the creation of a human embryo using a technique
that does not use any genetic material from a male, BBC
News reported.
The technique, called parthenogenesis, stimulates a human
egg to start dividing just like the early stages of
development in a fertilized egg. Once the parthenotes, as
they're called, reach a certain stage of development, they
are used for the extraction of stem cells.
While some scientists say the technique is an ethical way
to obtain stem cells than using normal, fertilized
embryos, others disagree.
Matthew O'Gorman, of Life, a pro-life charity in the UK,
said Friday's announcement was disheartening.
"It is another example of Frankenstein science," O'Gorman
said, "which illustrates how out of touch with public
opinion these recent scientific developments are."
Josephine Quintavalle, spokeswomen for Comment of
Reproductive Ethics, said it is time for the government to
put a moratorium on licenses for embryo research.
"We know so little about the mechanics of embryology,"
Quintavalle said. "These are very big steps, indeed, and
the whole area is running completely out of control."
Quintavalle said scientists should concentrate on adult
stem cells, such as those harvested from umbilical cords,
because they are already providing cures and have no
ethical problems.
----- 10 -----
One Child - Two Mothers
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
9 September 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The British government has given the go-ahead for
scientists to create a human embryo with genetic material
from two women. The Associated Press reported the
Newcastle University experiment will transfer the
pro-nuclei -- parts of the nucleus of an embryo -- from a
man and woman into an unfertilized egg from another woman.
The goal of the procedure is to prevent mothers from
passing certain genetic diseases to their pre-born babies.
The license to perform the research was granted by British
officials after 18 months of hearings and deliberation.
The government passed regulations on genetic engineering
in humans in 1990, but the laws did not apply to this
situation.
While the research may not technically constitute human
cloning, Dr. Reginald Finger, medical issues analyst for
Focus on the Family, said, "The technique leaves several
crucial bioethics issues at an impasse."
He added that the failure rate for such experiments means
many human lives will be destroyed in the process.
----- 11 -----
Roberts Does Not Waver, Despite Baseless Left Demands
Concerned Women for America
9/13/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8934/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Washington, D.C. –– Concerned Women for America (CWA) praised John Roberts’ dignified answers to some very inappropriate questioning today.
The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Roberts today on such issues as abortion, civil rights, judicial activism and the role of the Constitution. Despite the many inappropriate questions thrust at him, Roberts held to his convictions and answered only those questions which would not conflict with his presumed role of Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) today raised questions about Judge John Roberts’ faith as it would relate to his service as chief justice of the Supreme Court. “Her questions slyly implied that a Christian would have difficulty filling that position,” commented Wendy Wright, CWA’s Executive Vice President. “It is precisely this kind of anti-Christian religious litmus test that many Americans find deeply offensive. Our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian principles which have made it one of the freest nations in the world. Feinstein is dipping her toe into the very ugly, muddy waters of religious bigotry. America’s Founding Fathers considered religious beliefs to be an asset, even essential to public officeholders. Sadly, Sen. Feinstein apparently believes the opposite of those wise men to whom we owe gratitude for our free and strong country.”
Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel, commented, “We firmly believe that Judge Roberts’ statements and opinions demonstrate his unequivocal belief in and deference to the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. As the nation’s largest women's public policy organization, we believe that Judge Roberts’ expressed positions on gender equality, comparable worth and other so-called women’s issues are entirely consistent with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.”
----- 12 -----
John Roberts Talks About Abortion During Senate Judiciary Hearing
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 13, 2005
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1611.html
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wasted little time in firing questions about abortion at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Though he discussed abortion from several legal angles, Roberts declined to give his opinion on the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that ushered in an era of 44 million abortions and, though he discussed it.
"I should not, based on the precedent of prior nominees, agree or disagree with particular decisions and I'm reluctant to do that," Roberts said. "That's one of the areas, I think, prior nominees have drawn the line."
[...]
"I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent ... It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided," Roberts said.
Roberts told the panel that Roe v. Wade is entitled to some measure of respect because it is a long-standing decision.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," -- the judicial notion that long-standing decisions deserve additional respect.
That notion is usually applied at the lower court levels with supporters of the concept saying only the Supreme Court should overturn such significant precedents. The current Supreme Court has been willing to overturn precedents on various issues and nothing in Roberts' comments indicates he would not overturn Roe if given the opportunity.
However, Roberts also referred to a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood as a precedent-setting case as well. Though the high court upheld Roe, it also paved the way for states to pass a plethora of laws limiting abortions.
Roberts, named by President Bush to replace pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of two dissenters in Roe, said he supports the notion of a right to privacy. However, it again provided no indication as to whether he thought that right included a right to abortion.
He said the right to privacy is found in the Constitution "in various ways," including the First, Third and Fourth amendments.
[...]
Pro-life groups say they're confident Roberts will uphold COnstitutional principles, which don't show any right to abortion in the founding document.
"Judge John Roberts has shown a deep respect for the Constitution and in his personal and professional life exhibits the primary lesson that comes from religion--honoring a higher authority above one's own desires, opinions or preference," says Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Cleaning Up the Judiciary
Concerned Women for America
9/13/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8926&department=CWA&categoryid=misc
As the Roberts confirmation battle illustrates, getting judges on the bench who will interpret rather than create law can be long process. And given their lifetime appointments to the bench, the chance to make changes comes along far too infrequently. Is there another way? Steve Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation joins Bob Knight, head of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute says yes. He has researched the issue of impeachment. Click here to listen.
[Robert Knight and Steve Fitschen: Steve: We... created a little bit of a controversy a few years ago when we began to advocate that judges who render unconstitutional decisions should be impeached... if you are not faithful to the Constitution, you are usurping power, you are destroying the separation of power, you are really stealing the sovereignty of the people." Notes that there isn't a lot of interest in that. "I think they've bought into the myth that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says." Talks about judges being "out of control," particularly on the 9th Circuit. "The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit... so that's certainly an example. We've launched this modern impeachment movement in response to the Amendment 2 case, where [Ed: Holy Crap! This all comes out of Amendment 2!] Justice Kennedy... said that, 'If you think that homosexuals should not have special rights, you are a hate monger... the only basis for this decision is animus... and that's what launched the movement."
Robert Knight also condemns Lawrence v. Texas as being an impeachable offense. Fitschen talks about impeaching five Supreme Court justices in this context.
Robert Knight brings up the Massachusetts case legalising marriage rights for same-sex couples; asked if this is an impeachable offense, Fitschen says, "absolutely," while adding that they're still doing research into building an impeachment movement at the state level.
Fitschen: "The mere threat of impeachment would have a very positive impact, and that simply letting the judges know this could happen to them if they cross the line is a good thing... when you see someone like Justice Kennedy... who have a pattern of usurpation, a pattern of tyranny, then they're a good target."
Fitschen talks more about impeaching the majority of the Supreme Court. "It's going to take public outcry... I cannot imagine Congress doing it any time soon. But two years, three years, four years... what if it takes 10 years?" "It is corruption to refuse to impeach someone who deserves to be impeached," arguing that if you don't impeach the judges they want impeached, you are corrupt and supporting tyranny.]
----- 14 -----
Judge John Roberts Deserves Fair Up Or Down Vote In The Senate!
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release September 12, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2423
Washington, DC – Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Mrs. Andrea Lafferty issued the following statement on behalf of Judge John Roberts today:
“President Bush has made a courageous move in picking Judge John Roberts to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. This decision is historic and clearly signals the President’s firm commitment to Constitutionalism.
“Judge Roberts’ writings reveal him to be a man of temperance, restraint, and thoughtfulness. He has publicly stated his judicial philosophy. He believes judges are to interpret the law, not create law. He has respect for the two other branches of government, and he understands that each branch has its role in our Republican form of government. If only other federal judges had such a clear understanding of their role.
“In short, Judge Roberts is a Constitutionalist who understands that judges are not legislators nor are they in charge of the executive branch of government. This is not an extremist position. A survey of the Federalist Papers will reveal similar thoughts from our nation’s Founding Fathers.
[More, particularly captioned pictures, at URL]
[Note: a Constitutionalist is _not the same thing as_ a Constructionist, much less a Strict Constructionalist. What the fuck is going on here? Seriously? WTF?]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 06:41 am (UTC)Actually, it might just be that they realize Roberts is the best they're going to get, and they're hoping he'll lean their way more than not. Plus if he wins, they can claim a win, and say they were betrayed later if he goes against them. Remember, their support in this really isn't going to sway any votes. This is known as getting ahead of the train and taking credit for when it shows up.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 12:31 pm (UTC)I say this because the church traditionally moves like a glacier, which is why there were many cases of abuse that went uninvestigated for decades. I also say this, because during the early 1970's my godfather was enrolled in a seminary, hoping to become a priest, and he left the seminary-
because of the widespread homosexual sex that was being practiced by a large number of seminarians. The prevailing attitude of the time, as far as I could get from stories told to me by him (and unfortunately I can't get those repeated, as he passed away four years ago), was that homosexual sex didn't "count" as breaking celibacy. It was a very tumultuous time in the church, and a lot of seminarians left because of similar reasons.
I think if this is the Church's reaction to anything, it might be a reaction to THAT, and just SEEMS to be a reaction to the sex abuse against minors scandal. Because trust me, it's WAY too soon for there to be a Pontifical reaction to that mess- it's only been a few years. But it HAS been a few decades since the 70's, and my money is on the Church reacting to that.
Now, all that said, I think this is stupid, since celibate is celibate and I don't get what this is supposed to do other than completely alienate homosexuals from the church altogether, but when I get back from my two week stint in Vancouver, I'm going to go talk to the Bishop and see if I can't get the ear of someone who can take my objections right over to Rome, or at least further up the ladder than the run of the mill parishioner gets heard.
At the very least, I happen to know a few editors at The Tablet, the newspaper for the Diocese of Brooklyn, who would probably be willing to publish an article on the subject, which I would be more than willing to write. Of all the issues the Church should be addressing, the sexual preferences of those who want to devote their lives to God and service of the people should be the absolute least of them.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 01:26 pm (UTC)Ok, I could understand someone saying "My religion forbids me to recognize a gay 'marriage' but I have nothing against a civil union which gives gays the same rights in the eyes of the law as a married couple". But being against civil unions too? That's just being a fucking hateful, spiteful bastard. How many of these people are calling themselves christians? All of them? These are, by far, the worsst that christianity has to offer the world and it makes me ashamed to be counted in their number in any respect.
Not that I would ever give up God because of how some pinheaded asshole interpret His will, but it's still enraging. And I'm not even gay. I can't even imagine how fucking annoyed with this you must be. What a bunch of fucktards.
*RAGES MORE*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 02:39 pm (UTC)Besides, I mean - they want Lawrence v. Texas overturned. They want to be able to make us illegal. Of course they're going to be against CUs.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 02:45 pm (UTC)no that is not true at all. Sprint/Nextel offers benefits for same sex partners in every state. And I live in Virginia. I know that it is not illegal for us to offer these benefits here. And we have the same policy in every state we have offices. I believe Vermont and Hawaii are the only states we don't have offices and I doubt they have those laws being as liberal as they both are.
Not to harp on and old stick but if the Fedgov didn't overstep it's bounds constantly this would be a moot point. Federal Marriage Ammendment. What a fucking joke.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 01:24 am (UTC)My recollection is that for the privacy position, what he actually said was that everybody currently on the Supreme Court believes in some notion of a "right to privacy", and since this includes Scalia and Thomas, that makes pretty clear that he allows for arbitrarily weak notions of a right to privacy and thus that his statement was essentially content-free.
There may also be a certain amount of outright lying along the lines of Thomas' claim not to have any position on abortion and not having really given any thought prior to his confirmation hearings (i.e., stuff that can't really be verified now but will become obvious once he's on the bench).