It just keeps getting wierder...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html?referrer=emailarticle>And it just keeps getting weirder...</a></h1></center>

The <i><a href=http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/>Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration</a></i> met in its star chamber over the weekend and has reached a verdict...

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is guilty of prohibiting capital punishment for juveniles and and citing "international norms" in his findings. He should therefore be impeached...at least acording to Phyllis Schlafly and Michael P. Farris.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer (<i>just <b>whose</b> constitution is open to debate</i>), stated that because Kennedy helped strike down Texas' anti-sodomy law, he was upholding "...Marxist, Leninist satanic principles drawn from foreign law...".

Vieira went on to say that his principles in dealing with the SCOTUS were drawn from ol'Joe Stalin himself. "No man, no problem..." he said. He left out the part about death solving all problems.

And dear Phyllis went on to gush, in giddy, girlish tones, about how the morally crippled Tom DeLay (R,Texas) and the congenital idiot Richard Cornyn (R,Texas)(<i>not all Texans are idiots...just the ones in national political office</i>) should be fully supported in their quest to destroy and independent judiciary and turn it into something more to their liking...a rubber stamp comes to mind.

The truly frightening, or pathetic depending on how you look at it, thing about these people is they do not seem to see the inherent contradiction or irony in preserving the Constitution through Stalinesque tactics. As for their desire to restore the constitution, as with Mr. Vieira, just whose constitution they wish to 'restore' is a matter which is open for debate. Their premise and the actions they wish to take based upon that premise are anti-American and anti-Constitution.

The lunatic-fringe of the right wing-nuts is moving towards the mainstream of political consciousness, and they could hopelessly pollute that stream with their gibberish. In any sane society, these mawkish buffoons would by ridiculed to the point that they could no longer show their faces in public. But, as evidenced by the unquestioned acceptance of Mr. Vieira's embracing of Stalin by the crowd and how little coverage this meeting recieved, we do not live in a sane society. To quote a favorite author of mine, "<i><b>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." - HST</b></i>. And these people are stone-cold professional weird.

Citations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html?referrer=emailarticle

http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/

 

[musicman]

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yeah, keep on snoozin' and you'll wake up in your very own totalitarian state.

 

[Mr. P]

Yeah, keep on snoozin' and you'll wake up in your very own totalitarian state.

I think some are lookin for a theocracy Bully, and hope the rest of us are asleep.

 

[dilloduck]

I think some are lookin for a theocracy Bully, and hope the rest of us are asleep.

I don't see any evidence anywhere that a theocracy is a goal for anyone.

 

[musicman]

Yeah, keep on snoozin' and you'll wake up in your very own totalitarian state.

Cool. Keep posting horseshit like this; it takes me right off. Up the theocracy! We're comin' for you FIRST, Bully!

 

[5stringJeff]

I think some are lookin for a theocracy Bully, and hope the rest of us are asleep.

Are you serious?

 

[Merlin1047]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html?referrer=emailarticle>And it just keeps getting weirder...</a></h1></center>

The <i><a href=http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/>Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration</a></i> met in its star chamber over the weekend and has reached a verdict...

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is guilty of prohibiting capital punishment for juveniles and and citing "international norms" in his findings. He should therefore be impeached...at least acording to Phyllis Schlafly and Michael P. Farris.

Do you believe that the members of the SCOTUS should be limited to using the Constitution of the United States and only those exceptions authorized in the Constitution or do you believe that, once appointed, they are an authority unto themselves who can utilize law from any source they choose?

 

[no1tovote4]

Hey Bully, what if they used the Catholic Catechism to make the choice? Would you be happy about it or would you be supporting them becuase the decision is what you wanted?

International law should not be used in deciding the Constitutionality of any law or regulation. Should they be unencumbered by actual law and seek any source they wish so long as the choice agrees with Bully? Or should they actually work within the confines of the Constitution they are supposed to be supporting?

 

[Mr. P]

Are you serious?

VERY

 

[5stringJeff]

VERY

OK, all my fellow Christian conservatives, stop what you're doing - we've been found out!

Seriously. Outside of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whom most Christians don't listen to anyways, who is trying to establish a theocracy in America?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Cool. Keep posting horseshit like this; it takes me right off. Up the theocracy! We're comin' for you FIRST, Bully!

I'll be sure to keep my powder dry and my knives sharpened. But of course, you'll just be some remf, talks big but can't step up to the plate and swing.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Do you believe that the members of the SCOTUS should be limited to using the Constitution of the United States and only those exceptions authorized in the Constitution or do you believe that, once appointed, they are an authority unto themselves who can utilize law from any source they choose?

It's called legal precendent...happens all the time.

 

[Bullypulpit]

OK, all my fellow Christian conservatives, stop what you're doing - we've been found out!

Seriously. Outside of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whom most Christians don't listen to anyways, who is trying to establish a theocracy in America?

Follow the link to the groups website and you'll find out.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's called legal precendent...happens all the time.

Awesome, so when they begin taking "precedent" from the Bible you won't complain....

That's a load of crap Bully and disingenuous to boot. You cannot take precedent from whatever source you want, and the only reason you agree with it is that if fits your views. The hypocrisy in this view is truly one of the most apparent examples that I have seen, it only underlines the way people will agree with whatever their "leaders" do so long as the choice matches their viewpoint.

They are supposed to rule if the law fits the Constitution not attempt to find law wherever they want to to match their view, they do take an oath to uphold that Constitution not those of other countries.

 

[5stringJeff]

Follow the link to the groups website and you'll find out.

The website has this:

OUR FOCUS
The Judicial Assault On Our Judeo-Christian Heritage, Judges: Abortion And Other Life Issues, Judicial Nominations, The Real Constitution, Remedies To Judicial Tyranny, Mobilizing The Grassroots, and The Decline Of Faith And What To Do About It

So attempting to influence the nomination of judges who are not hostile to Christianity constitutes establishing a theocracy? Does that mean a secular group like Americans for the Separation of Church from State is trying to establish a 'secular theocracy?'

 

[musicman]

I'll be sure to keep my powder dry and my knives sharpened.

They will avail you naught. Accept the loving, merciful theocracy or die like a dog.

But of course, you'll just be some remf, talks big but can't step up to the plate and swing.

All right, Buster - now you've done it. This time, it's PERSONAL. When the iron gate at the Jesusland re-education center slams shut on you forever, remember how you dissed me this day, for I hold the keys. You will rue the day you trifled with deacon/exercise instructor musicman - BWA HA HA HA!

 

[Bullypulpit]

They will avail you naught. Accept the loving, merciful theocracy or die like a dog.






All right, Buster - now you've done it. This time, it's PERSONAL. When the iron gate at the Jesusland re-education center slams shut on you forever, remember how you dissed me this day, for I hold the keys. You will rue the day you trifled with deacon/exercise instructor musicman - BWA HA HA HA!

 

[Bullypulpit]

The website has this:


So attempting to influence the nomination of judges who are not hostile to Christianity constitutes establishing a theocracy? Does that mean a secular group like Americans for the Separation of Church from State is trying to establish a 'secular theocracy?'

I never mentioned theocracy...just totalitarianism. It was Mr. Vieira, after all, who seems to find Stalin's tactics in dealing with his opponents appropriate in reigning in the judiciary. That none questioned him in this little star-chamber implies their assent with such tactics.

The religious right in this country, and others, is not so much interested in religion as in power...is less concerned with faith than it is with intrusion...is pre-occupied with self-righteousness rather than what is right. Theirs is nothing more than the iron fist of totalitarianism in the tattered silk glove of Jesus' love.

 

[dilloduck]

I never mentioned theocracy...just totalitarianism. It was Mr. Vieira, after all, who seems to find Stalin's tactics in dealing with his opponents appropriate in reigning in the judiciary. That none questioned him in this little star-chamber implies their assent with such tactics.

The religious right in this country, and others, is not so much interested in religion as in power...is less concerned with faith than it is with intrusion...is pre-occupied with self-righteousness rather than what is right. Theirs is nothing more than the iron fist of totalitarianism in the tattered silk glove of Jesus' love.

WOW--poetic bs !!