Toto

McConnell appears to be backing away from some of his more outrageous statements, and saying that others were just a deliberate attempt to be provocative, but not an indication of how he would act as a judge. Do I believe him? Not really. Do you?

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/politics/19JUDG.html" target="_blank">Judicial Nominee Says His Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench</a>

galiel

McConnell has a record. A public record. He should be judged on what he has actually done, not what he says he will do.

The results are alarming. He is yet another of the Radical Right(c) who believes he is championing a holy cause, and he will lie and deceive in order to achieve his end. Just as Anton Scalia did, only McConnell is far more extreme. Just as Ashcroft did, only McConnell will be appointed for life. Just as Bush did, except we the people don't get to change our minds later.

The real danger is that our elective institutions are dealing with these people as if they are honest, reasonable people who play by the rules, rather than zealous ideologues who will do anything to be in a position to make this a Christian nation. Like Hitler, they are using democratic institutions in order to thwart democracy.

Stephen Maturin

Nope, not a word of it. Lack of credulity won't adversely affect his nomination, though. After all, Bill Rehnquist flat-out lied to the Judiciary Committee in hearings on his nomination for Chief Justice, but the full Senate confirmed him anyway (albeit with the largest number of nays in the history CJ confirmation votes).

Layman

He does have a record. But it is a record as a law professor, not as a judge. The role of a law professor is to express his own opinions, be provacative, and encrouage debate and discussion. The role of the judge is to enforce the law as it exists. At least, that is what conservatives think the role of a judge to be.

Layman

The petition was circulated among law professors and submitted to the Senator Hatch on the Judiciary Committee to support the nomination of McConnel.

I saw plenty of Yales, Harvards, Berkleys, USCLAs, Boston U's, William & Mary's, Univ. of Chicago's, as well as Dukes Univ. of Texas', USD, Loyola, Pepperdines, Bostom College, and many many more.

galiel

NO. That is what the Radical Right(c) wants the rest of us to believe they think. In fact, it is the RR which has the most activist legal agenda ever. In their zeal to support the great Cause, they are willing to trample over judicial restraint, the standards of precedent, and "original intent", all the while accusing opponents of doing precisly what they are actively doing. It is a classic use of misdirection and the Great Lie, and it has sown vast confusion among the reasonable majority of Americans.

We have to understand that these are the ultimate Machiavellians. RRs believe any means are legitimised by the mother of all ends, the End of Days. Lying under oath is a minor issue when you are fighting to bring us closer to the Rapture.

Think I am over-reacting? Think this is hyperbole? Think again. This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory. Nothing about this is hidden, we are just blinded by ignorance. once you take a look, the RRs themselves are quite open about the whole thing. It is the overt, stated strategic agenda of the RR. Just read, not what they say to the popular media, but what they say to their own audience.

Read Scalia's more recent speeches to religious audiences. He is beginning to show his true agenda.

Read what Ashcroft has said at ultra conservative forums.(shudder). Read what McConnell says!

McConnell proposed in congressional testimony a Constitutional Amendment replacing the First Amendment! McConnell supports taxpayer dollars going to institutions and programs that explicitly discriminate and are exempt from civil rights laws.

MConnel has consistently argued, not just as a provocateur in the classroom, but in ernest congressional testimony, that the separation principle is incorrect, and that the Establishment Clause should be gutted.

This is not just an issue of legal restraint vs. activism. This is an issue of a deliberate strategy, through obfuscation and camoflage, to misuse legitimate democratic means in order to stage a theocratic oligarchial coup. Much as I hate to trigger Godwin's Law, the similarities to Germany between the Word Wars are too compelling to ignore.

Read Buffman's excellent research into the alarmingly revisionist position paper by the Library of Congress on Jefferson's original intent, and, even more alarming and publicly influential, the exhibit at the Library of Congress called "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic".

Research the systematic infiltration of RRs into local school boards and cultural councils across the country. Check out the decades-long stranglehold RRs have held over the public school textbook selection process in Texas, which governs the publishing decisions for the entire nation.

Read "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative" by David Brock, about the deliberate, cynical. over-the top smear campaign against Anita Hill, justified by the holy imperative to get Thomas, another RR, onto the court.

Do you really think the Moral Majority just decided one day to take their bats and go home? They have simply learned from their mistakes. Now, instead of Robert Bork, openly radical, they put up a McConnell, who simply lies to get the job. Now, instead of providing a barn-door target in the form of a centralized Moral Majority, they use classic guerilla tactics, decentralizing, infiltrating, blending in with the natives, abhoring titles and media attention, waiting until they are properly positioned before they act.

We are not talking about people who are within the broad spectrum of American political thought. We are talking about people so extreme, so outside the maintream and so zealous that they would have been laughed out of the Republican tent not to long ago.

Now, they own the tent poles.

Like David Duke, they have cleaned up nicely in order to sneak under the radar, but they haven't changed their underlying spots. To the faithful, they are pretty frank about what's going on, comfortable that the rest of us just can't believe anyone would so radically violate the "code of conduct" in order to achieve their far-out aims.

Don't take my word for it. take *their* word for it. In the best skeptical tradition, check it out for yourself.

ybnormal

Good post, galiel... but wait'll Buffman comes along and reminds you that few here seem to want to believe the type of conspiracy theory that folks like us are pushing... again, too many seem to want to believe that all these "events" and "encroachments" are unrelated to a real, organized, well-thought-out social and political game plan... too many folks have their own "Satan" to blame everything on, and their own word to use in the same fashion that xians do... tell me that "Fundies" doesn't seem to serve that same purpose here.

But I'm gonna keep asking who these "Fundies" actually are, until someone enlightens me and specifically identifies them. We all know who a handful of the obvious "nuts" are, but that's about it as far as I can tell. BTW, it ain't been lost on me that you haven't fallen for that Fundy trap... you at least use the more inclusive RR, but like I've said, even that is an archaic misnomer to me anymore. I've fallen into the "Fundy" trap myself at times, which should prove interesting to someone here, that altho someone like myself aggressively resists it, I find myself using it just to keep folks from yelling at me so much. It's kinda funny.

About this topic tho, and your, In fact, it is the RR which has the most activist legal agenda ever. If I'm not mistaken, they began this "agenda" by saying that they needed to "correct" the recent past and stop the liberal judges from decades of "writing new laws" (and kicking God outta school). Point being, that now, in our opinion, they are about to do the same thing, and write their own new law. They have done what you just said they do... learn from their mistakes, correct themselves and come back fighting with new definitions that here, accuse liberals of doing exactly what they want to do.

The issues have now become so muddled to the general public that we're down to arguments similar to those over what the bible says... it matters not what it says, or what it was meant to say... it says what anyone wants it to say... that's where I see these Constitutional fights going... and that is sad... something I thought I'd never live to see... the total politicizing of the Constitution. I hope I'm wrong... I hope these who say, "It'll never happen" are right... which makes me feel more like a xian than I've ever felt... living on a hope and a prayer.


Do you really think the Moral Majority just decided one day to take their bats and go home? They have simply learned from their mistakes. Now, instead of Robert Bork, openly radical, they put up a McConnell, who simply lies to get the job. Now, instead of providing a barn-door target in the form of a centralized Moral Majority, they use classic guerilla tactics, decentralizing, infiltrating, blending in with the natives, abhoring titles and media attention, waiting until they are properly positioned before they act.

Nothing much to add there... just wanted to bring attention to it... well, I could add that the MM served it's purpose... they don't mind letting old terms die... they are quite progressive when it comes to marketing... and about that who simply lies to get the job. Let's not forget Ashcroft's nomination hearings and his senator's perfect use of the "religious persecution" defense. "Religious litmus test" was the term used I think. By Lott? My Senator!

And this one too...

To the faithful, they are pretty frank about what's going on, comfortable that the rest of us just can't believe anyone would so radically violate the "code of conduct" in order to achieve their far-out aims.

They do have huge balls...


Nothing about this is hidden, we are just blinded by ignorance.

That must be it... which allows me to point out again where I was coming from on that "activism" thingy... I'm too much of a slacker for your type of fight anyway... but if you are right with that last comment, then I'm sorta on track about a more pressing need for information and education as a means to open our eyes, blinded by ignorance.

Toto brings for me, a lot of the right info.

Peace!

Layman

Actually, since I AM a member of the "religious right" and a lawyer and a legal activist and a former President of a Federalist Society Chapter who rubbed elbows with Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Bork, I think I have some insight into their "agenda." And most of us do believe in Judicial Restraint AND originalism (in the Constitutional context). Sometimes those two principals appear to be in tension because liberal activists have shredded the intent of the Constitution.

I'm not saying there are no activists on the right. But they tend to be from the libertarian wing of the party. I attended a forum/training seminar with the Institute for Justice and this became very clear to me. The libertarians were trying to resurrect doctrines like "economic liberty" as a fundamental right, whereas the conservatives -- such as myself -- were very uncomfortable with the blatant activists agenda.

[delete unsubstantiated ravings]

Supreme Court justices are allowed to be religious. Remember, there is no religious test for public office.

You are simply going to have to be more specific. I've heard a lot from Ashcroft and McConnell, but I can't say they are part of some far ranging conspiracy. They are advocating their viewpoint.

Proposing a constitutional amendment is hardly "judicial activism" is it?

Actually, he's arguing that the modernist interprations of the First Amendment which go back only about 30-40 years is incorrect. And he's right.

[delete more unsubstantiated ravings]

Umm, since Jefferson was not even at the Constitional convention, why would his "original intent" matter?

[delete further unsubstantiated ravings]

We can exchange books all day long which make the otherside out to be big bad ogres. Why not try some real scholarship? Like Stephen Carter's, The Culture of Disbelief. A very thoughtful work by a black liberal law professor on the left's unreasonable hostility towards religion.

[delete further unsubstantiated ravings]

Since there are tens of millions of such people, saying they are outside the "broad spectrum of American political thought" is just silly.

Ahh, dropping in the racism. Cute, and typically liberal. Actually, the most diverse churches in this country are conservative charismatic/pentacostal churches. Half of my church is minority. Two of my five pastors have been minorities -- a latino and an African-American.

The racist religous right is a myth of the secular left.

Don't worry, I won't take your word for anything.

{edited by Toto to fix quote tags only}

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

galiel

First of all, Layman, I applaud you for coming right out and identifying your bias. We all have them, but most people do not expose them in these kind of forums.

However, your mostly intelligent critique of my comments reverts to knee-jerk doctrine when you resort to erecting a "liberal left" strawman.

This is partially my fault. I can see how you might be quick to misapprehend my position, because some of my language does indeed coincide with classic leftist sloganeering--as much as it at times borrows from the right's shorthand critique of political correctness, for example. I'm a big pragmatic fan of "appropriate technology".

Also, IANAL, so I am not practiced with the kind of linguistic precision which is the forte of your profession. Lacking as well a formal education, I have not gone through the experience of formal debates in a learning environment.

I do try to always be honest about where I stand, and I recognize that at times I am not sufficiently clear. One of the reasons I participate in the discussions on these forums is to continually hone and adjust my communication so that my message is not obscured by my rhetoric.

Apparently I was not quite successful in this instance.

I think I [i]have[/] been explicit about three things:

1) I do not believe these are "right-left" issues at all, any more than opposition to censorship is a right-left issue. Separation and the First Amendment are not historically liberal causes. They are bedrock civil libertarian causes, which is some thing quite different.

2) I make a clear distinction between reasonable, intellectually honest people who reasonably and respectfully disagree, on the one hand--such as, say, Cathy Young, William Bennett, Mario Cuomo and Jim Hightower, to quote four people who are about as different as any I could think of--and intellectually dishonest people who are zealous to the point of justifying anything and everything to achieve their crusades, such as David Horowitz, Noam Chomsky, Jesse Jackson or Pat Buchanan, on the other hand. (I don't mention Ann Coulter here, because, in my opinion, she is a mediocre mind who hides her intellectual poverty and lack of original thought with speechifying and invective. Nor do I mention Louis Farrakhan, because he is utterly just out of his mind.)

Now that we have on the one hand and the other hand, to confuse the picture with a Venusian third hand, utterly beyond the pale are people who have covert anti-democratic agendas and say whatever they think they must in order to sneak into a position of power on false pretenses and then unethically abuse their position to advance causes for which they were not elected or appointed. Such as Ashcroft, Oliver North or David Duke, for example (I am sure you can throw in some historical examples from the left, although I admit I can't think of any at the moment). Again, not clumping these people in the same category ideologically, merely in their tactical use of camoflage in order to defeat the intent of the democratic system and deny the people and/or their elected officials the right to make an informed decision.

Please, if you disagree with any of the names specifically, note the underlying point. I am sure you can find examples of your own for each of the categories I cite.

This third category of people, because of their Machiavellian tactics, are a fundamental threat to democracy, regardless of whether or not you approve of their ultimate goal.

Perhaps my choice of label--Radical Right--was confusing as well, because the acronym RR can be easily confused with the "Religious Right". I deliberately appropriated the "radical" label, with its wiff of far-left extremism, in order to break the conservative taboo on rejecting any one, no matter how wierd, so as not to fracture the wierd and utterly unnatural libertarian-conservative Republican coalition (and, yes, the Democratic party is similarly a wierd collection of barely related inbreds. That does not negate the first point).

This kind of politically correct fear of self-criticism nearly destroyed the Democratic party in the past, and it is going to destroy the Republicans as well, because extremists know no limits, are inherently hostile to the democratic system, and only play by the rules of democracy to the extent it serves their ultimate undemocratic purposes.

The last thing I want to do is to alienate reasonable conservatives (how I hate these anachronistic labels!) who, even though we differ dramatically in our visions of America, generally agree on the use of ethical practices, respect for the rule of law and the need to follow not just the letter but the intent of our democratic system.

Note that none of my critique used the term "conservative" or "Republican" or even "religious right". I am talking about people who should scare you as much as they scare me. People who would not think twice about ending this democracy if it would forward their goal of theocracy.

I am not singling out Scalia or Ashcroft because of their conservative politics, and I never implied that Justices may not hold religious opinions. You notice I did not mention Reinquist- who has been open about his agenda - nor Thomas - who is simply a second-rate mind, at best, is completely lacking in integrity, reportedly puts less energy and attention into his judicial duties than any other Justice, is most likely a disfunctional sexaholic, and is an embarrassment to the whole country (none of which has anything to do with his political views).

I have great respect for certain conservative intellectuals, such as Willian Safire or New Gingrich, despite my disagreement with most of their positions, and I do not apply an ideological litmus test for either the courts or elected office.

For example, I have enormous respect for Justice Kennedy, despite strong disagreements with his decisions, because I consider him to be both a first-rate mind and an intellectually honest person with a strong sense of personal integrity and commitment to public service. On the other hand, Scalia, whom I at first pegged as merely arch-conservative, but certainly brilliant and highly qualified to serve as a SCJ, has begun to suggest that he is guided by more than an honest review of the facts, that he has a specific evangelical agenda for the nation that he wishes to push using his nonelected position on the Court.

Of course, I view this as an outside layman, as opposed to your closer view, so I am willing to be proven wrong about Scalia, at least.

To me, anyone who does not start from a position of utter commitment to democratic principles is a serious threat, no matter what their politics.

There used to be a tradition of appointing justices who were, first and foremost, exceptional legal minds, and, second, accepted the basic premises of a Constitutional Republic.

Someone like McConnell, who experiences a convenient confirmation conversion, is likely, based on his historic expression of his deep convictions on preciesly the issue of judicial activism, to misuse his position to achieve aims which more legitimately are the domain of elected politicians.

Do you not agree that being dishonest under oath about one's intentions during confirmation hearings conducted by the elected body constitutionally designated to hold those hearings is not a great qualification for Justice of the Supreme Court? I expect you are the kind of person who puts principle over expediency. If you do not agree that integrity and honesty is a requirement for Supreme Court justices, attorney generals and other appointed officials, then we should just end our discussion right here.

(Note about the David Duke reference: I am not sure where your thing about "playing the race card" comes from, certainly not from anything I said, but you completely misunderstood my purpose. I was citing him as an example of someone with ultimately no allegiance to democracy who made himself over as a respectable, clean-cut Republican politician, lying about his views, merely to try to fool the public into voting for someone whose actual positions they overwhelmingly do not support.)

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Layman

And how do I go about proving that someone is NOT involved in a secret anti-democratic conspiracy?

Scalia has the most intellectually honest approach to his judicial decision of any Supreme Court justice in recent times. No one is going to be 100% consistent, but he has a judicial method, he's published what that method is in a very good book called, "A Matter of Interpretation," and his decisions are generally consistent with that method. It's not secret. Remember, this is the guy who voted to strike down a flag-burning prohibition because he believed -- correctly -- that it violated the freedom of speech.

Everyone. Everyone. Everyone. Experiences a form of "confirmation conversion" because everyone has to say they will follow the law rather than their own opinion, and few people's views correllate 100% with the law.

Saying that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision is being honest. Saying that you will be forced to follow the law despite your disagreement with how it was decided, is courageous and honest. I would think McConnel would be being dishonest if now he was FOR Roe v. Wade and thought it a fine example of judicial articulation. Or if he NOW said he agreed with the Lemon test and other church-state decisions.

Well, until you provide evidence that McConnell is a liar and experienced a conversion radically different than most law professors eleveated to the Courts, this discussion is a waste of time.