Conservatives High Water Mark or Beginning of the Flood?

Christine Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, agrees with me that the "moderate" Republicans who opposed their party's vast majority, and made the deal with Democrats regarding the President's judicial nominations, are "radical moderates." As my last post points out, we could also call them zealots or "extreme" something-or-other because they know what they believe and are willing to fight for it.

That is as far as I agree with Ms. Whitman. She predicts that the Schiavo case was the high water mark of the social conservative movement. She repeats the lie that most Americans disapproved of the President's and Congress' attempt to save Terri Schiavo. She states that the memorandum of agreement between the Republicans and Democrats is the beginning of a new and beneficial moderation in American politics that returns American politics to a "sensible center."

While I might agree that moderation in American politics might overall be a good thing, I will never agree that moderation on all issues is good. Moderation is simply another word for tolerance...which has become the greatest of all virtues in this America, and is the cause of some of its greatest sins. There are some things for which moderation must remain anathema. Moderation on abortion. Moderation on the value of human life. Moderation on homosexual normalization, alternate lifestyles, and non-traditional families. Moderation on rejection of Christianity in public and in government. Moderation in these issues is out of the question. Abortion, valuing death over life, homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, non-traditional families, rejection of Christianity: these things are not sensible.

Ms. Whitman may wish that the moderates have returned to power so that liberal social gains will become permanent. Wishful thinking Ms. Whitman. The power of the zealous moderates is temporary. The circumstances that brought them together will soon evaporate while the values that motivate the majority of the Republican party are eternal. This is the beginning of the counter-revolution of the social conservatives, not the end.  ¶ 2:55 PM| |

  Zealots Will Survive

Martin Nolan of the San Franciso Chronicle observes,

"The winners of the great filibuster battle of 2005 are not Democrats or Republicans, nor elected officials at all. Single-issue bloggers and Googlers produced, directed and wrote the deadlock drama, which, despite Monday's face-saving truce, will continue.

"Moderate coalitions are temporary. Zealots have permanent goals and methods."

First, from a personal viewpoint I instinctively dislike being called a "zealot." Yes, Nolan's decription applies to me, but am I a zealot because I have permanent goals or permanent methods? Does Nolan know the origin of the term "zealot?" Zealot was the name of a loose band of Jewish insurgents who fought the Roman occupation during Jesus' time. Judas was a Zealot. In those days calling someone a Zealot could be either an objective factual statement or a subjective accusation designed to place the target outside of Roman law, therefore making them into a criminal. With Roman law long gone, "zealot" has lost its objective uses. Today "zealot" retains its subjective use to negatively label a person who is commited to something with which the labeler does not agree. It is also used to describe people who are more commited to something than is the labeler. Calling someone a zealot simply describes the relationship between the labeler and the target from the viewpoint of the labeler. In other words, it always indicates where the "zealot" stands in relation to the labeler but it fails to place the "zealot" into any objective framework in relation to a larger context either subjectively or objectively. That being true, what is wrong with being a zealot in someone's eyes? If nobody disagrees with me--if I am not commited to anything more than someone else is--that means that I stand for nothing at all. I would be lukewarm about everything.

Second, a minor point, I agree with Nolan's observation that "moderate coalitions are temporary." This certainty provides this "zealot" with the comfort of knowing that the majority of the Republican party can still prevail.

While liberals have vilified people like me with other labels such as "extreme right" or "conservative evangelicals" (today's equivalent of "zealot" because it has both objective and subjective elements) or "extreme religious right," etc., it is interesting to note that only seven Republicans signed the agreement. This means that liberals might consider seven Senate Republicans to be "mainstream" and the other 48 to be "extreme." Kind of violates the definition of "extreme" doesn't it? In my view, those seven who defied their own party and forced their views upon the majority are "extreme moderates" or "zealous moderates." If we can call the majority "extreme," then anyone can be zealous for their own position...just as the seven Republicans must be who defied their own party.

I am forced to conclude that being a zealot is good. It means that you know what you believe in and you will fight for it. Jesus said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." (Revelations 3:15-16)  ¶ 11:16 AM| |

  The Senate "Memorandum of Agreement on Judicial Nominations"

It is now inevitable that Democrats will filibuster Myers and Saad and that the Republicans will not have the votes to change the filibuster rules to force a vote on them. You can see a copy of the signed agreement here.

The signatories...

--"will vote to invoke cloture" for Brown (D.C Circuit), Pryor (11th Circuit), and Owen (5th Circuit).

--"make no commitment to vote for or against cloture" on the nominations of William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)

--will exercise "good faith" in the future in performing the Constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent, and "use his or her own discretion and judgment" to decide if a filibuster is necessary due to "extraordinary circumstances."

--"commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress" regarding filibusters "that would force a vote on judicial nominations."

--"encourage the Executive Branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration."

The document is signed by fourteen Senators (I have included links to email forms so you can contact them and state your opinion of their action):

Republicans:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)

Democrats:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Sen. Robert Byrd (W.V.)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.)
Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)

It is amazing to me that Republicans had to force these Democrats to sign a document promising to perform their Constitutional duty and promising to use good judgment and faith in the performance of that duty. I hope that the President refuses to allow the Democrats to screen his nominees before he even sends them to the Senate.

We the People are left with only one question. How long will it take the Democrats to fail to use good faith, good judgment, and proper discretion to indeed find "extraordinary circumstances" in a judicial nomination? My guess is, no longer than it takes Rehnquist to resign from the Supreme Court.  ¶ 9:03 AM| |

  Why Did Republicans Cave In?

Why didn't we change the filibuster rules this time? Democrats acted like the rules comprised an ancient and sacred ritual that must not be changed. Filibuster rules have been changed numerous times. Look up "cloture" on the web, and you find this:

The Senate put an end to unlimited debate in 1917 when it provided that two-thirds of those present may invoke the "rule of cloture" and set a time limit for discussion. In 1975, support necessary for cloture was changed to three fifths of the entire Senate; in 1979, a 100-hour cap on debate was imposed after cloture was invoked to limit the use of delaying amendments.

Why didn't Republicans stand firm? Because we are a reasonable party. We abhor being as unreasonable and irrational as the Democrats are. So we did the reasonable thing...which maintains Democrat ability to screen out any judges that are not acceptable to them...which is exactly where we are at today. As I said in an earlier post...it is too late to be reasonable. When reason fails, nations resort to war. Some Republican Senators just don't understand that we are in a Culture War that Democrats aim to win. We had better get serious about this.

To show how serious they are, here is a statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

"The deal, however, did open the door to votes on two of the most extreme opponents of separation of church and state. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor have on numerous occasions taken positions far outside the judicial mainstream on First Amendment rights, privacy rights and civil liberties.

"Brown has attacked the wall of separation between church and state as 'an uninformative metaphor.' Pryor has publicly questioned whether federal court precedent is always binding on the states. These two nominees have proven they are not fit for lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State will continue to urge the Senate to reject the nominations of Brown and Pryor because of their crabbed understanding of some of our nation's most cherished fundamental rights.

"We pledge to remain vigilant. If these nominees or others who hold similar views end up filling enough federal court vacancies, the United States could be saddled with a federal judiciary full of zealots issuing rulings based not on constitutional precepts but on the dictates of theocrats like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson."

It is comforting to know that Americans United is unhappy with the compromise. Also, it is humorous that they say, "the United States could be saddled with a federal judiciary full of zealots issuing rulings based not on constitutional precepts...." We already have a judiciary full of zealots issuing unconstitutional judgements. That is the problem. We want to return to a judiciary that actually makes judgements according to what is written in the Constitution and not according to international law, a concept of a living law, or any other arbitrary standard.

Dr. Dobson said,

"Extraordinary circumstances" is a particularly meaningless criterion, considering that Senate liberals thought qualified candidates like Brown and Owen were too extreme for the federal bench.

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," Dobson said. "Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed.

"Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness," Dobson added. "That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

Amen, Dr. Dobson.  ¶ 3:25 PM| |

  Republicans Cave In

I am disappointed to record that the Senate, within the past hour or so, has reached a compromise solution that ensures that Democrats can filibuster future judicial nominees in circumstances they view as "extraordinary." (No subjectivity THERE.) The only bright spot is that this agreement, and I do not have all the details yet, appears to ensure that President Bush will be able to place his nominees in the Supreme Court if vacancies occur while he is President and prompt confirmation is likely for three appellate court nominees -- Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr.

I know this is a bad deal for Republicans because Senator Schumer, the Senator who is on record stating that religious people are disqualified from federal judgeships, said, "Armageddon has been avoided. Thank God." Interesting choice of words for a man so opposed to religion. According to one report, Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) said on the Senate floor, "The nuclear option is off the table." If true, then Democrats can still filibuster whenever they want to, but Republicans cannot ever vote to end judicial filibusters??? At least some Republicans disagree and say that they can still end judicial filibusters if Democrats abuse this agreement.

Republicans had nothing to lose by ending judicial filibusters except the cooperation of the Democrats in the Senate. Oh, wait. We lost that a long time ago. Actually I can't think of anything worthwhile that we could have lost. Now, with this compromise, we have lost several of the President's nominees and gained nothing that we would not have had if we had stayed the course. Oh, I forgot that we have preserved the "comity" of the Senate. I don't ever want to hear that word again.

I can only hope that the details of this compromise will prove it to be a better deal than it seems right now, but I doubt it. All we have done, I think, is delayed the real fight:

"Leaders of both parties said the pact's greatest implications will surface when Bush fills a Supreme Court vacancy, which many expect this summer. Democrats, who hold 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, were eager to retain filibuster powers in hopes of dissuading Bush from nominating a staunch conservative."

Tell me one more time what the Republicans "gained" with this compromise...?  ¶ 11:26 PM| |

  Questions About "The Passion"

Andrew recently saw The Passion and has some questions about it. I will answer to the best of my ability. Mel Gibson's movie is best viewed with a good understanding of the Bible...not just of the story of Jesus' life and execution, but of Christian theology and the history of the Jews as told in the Old Testament. Without this understanding, The Passion's main impact is to create questions. Maybe that's what Mel wanted.

Andrew, my response is written after each of your questions:

1) Are the events portrayed in the movie historically accurate? Do both historians and the Bible agree on the events that Gibson portrayed?

ANSWER: Wow. Broad question. Generally, yes, however Mel took some creative liberty by adding a few "gap-filler" events. These events are not in the Bible or any other authoritative extra-Biblical source, but do NOT add or delete anything from the theology and meaning of the story. A couple of examples: (1) in Gethsemane, as Jesus prays before His arrest, He crushes the head of a snake that represents Satan. That is not specifically in the Bible, though it does represent what Jesus did by accepting His own execution. Had Jesus not accepted His own execution, Satan would have won that battle; (2) just after Jesus' arrest, as Jesus is being carried away, he is thrown over the bridge. That is not in the Bible. We don't know exactly what happened as He was led away. It is conceivable and consistent that His guards abused Him as they led Him to the high priests, but we don't know; (3) After Jesus' scourging, Mary cleans up His blood. That is not in the Bible. In the movie it serves to demonstrate her total devotion and love; it emphasizes, by contrast, the cruelty of Jesus' scourging; (4) as Jesus hangs on the cross, Satan walks through the crowd. That is not in the Bible, but serves to emphasize his evil influence at that event and his interest in seeing Jesus die. There are probably a few other examples. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, the movie is true to the Bible. The additional scenes do not change the flow of events or their meaning.

2) Was Aramaic the language spoken in the film?

ANSWER: Since I don't speak Aramaic(!), I am taking Mel's word for it...but Yes it is supposed to be Aramaic, the common language of the Jews at that time.

3) The temple that was cracked - was that Solomon's Temple? And was it - historically speaking - cracked near the time of Jesus' death? Was it rebuilt? Who rebuilt it?

ANSWER: (1) No, it was not Solomon's Temple, but it was the Temple that existed at that time and it was built on the site of Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. by Nebuzaradan and his men, who were soldiers in Nebuchadnezzar's army, when Babylon conquered Judah (Jeremiah 52:12-13). Jews rebuilt the Temple when they returned to Jerusalem following the 70 year exile to Babylon. (2) We do not have evidence that the Temple cracked when Jesus died, but that too is consistent with the Bible. Matthew 27:50-51 "But Jesus, again crying out loudly, breathed his last. At that moment, the Temple curtain was ripped in two, top to bottom. There was an earthquake, and rocks were split in pieces." So the rocks that split could have been part of the Temple. Extra-Biblical history written by Thallus states that there was an earthquake and eclipse when Jesus was executed. Note that there are no existing manuscripts of Thallus, so his words are known to us only by quotations in other writings. [also see Luke 23:44] (3) Jews continued to use that Temple until 70 A.D. when Romans completely destroyed it and all of Jersalem during the Jewish revolt. The Temple has never been rebuilt since then and is the subject of End Time prophecies. Since proper performance of Jewish worship and animal sacrifices could only be accomplished at the Temple, after Romans destroyed the Temple, the Jews were forced to change how they worshipped God. They have not performed animal sacrifice according to God's instructions in the Old Testament since 70 A.D. The Muslim shrine, "Dome of the Rock," now sits on the site of the Jewish Temple.

4) The younger dude who carried Mary around for the whole movie - was that assumed to be brother James?

ANSWER: I cannot remember for sure, but I think you are correct. I have seen the movie only once, on the day it was released. If it was not James, then it would have been John. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved." Of course Jesus loved all His disciples, but He was especially close to John, and John and mother Mary had an especially close relationship. John 19:25-27 "Jesus' mother, his aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene stood at the foot of the cross. 26 Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing near her. He said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." 27 Then to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that moment the disciple accepted her as his own mother."

5) After the crucifiction, how long did it take Jesus to die?

ANSWER: Jesus was nailed to the cross about 9am (Mark 15:25). He died about 3pm (Mark 15:34-37). So He was on the cross about six hours. [To Jews, the "first" hour of the day was 6am. So references to "the third hour" mean 9am, and so on.] By the way, here is thorough discussion of the crucifixion from a scientific medical viewpoint (http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/). Since I'm not a doctor I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it is interesting.

6) Did the Roman guards actually repent in the final hours before his death?

ANSWER: My memory is that the movie did not bring this out very well. Three of the gospels are specific on this point:

Matthew 27:54 The captain of the guard and those with him, when they saw the earthquake and everything else that was happening, were scared to death. They said, "This has to be the Son of God!"

Mark 15:39 When the Roman captain standing guard in front of him saw that he had quit breathing, he said, "This has to be the Son of God!"

Luk 23:47 When the captain there saw what happened, he honored God: "This man was innocent! A good man, and innocent!" 48 All who had come around as spectators to watch the show, when they saw what actually happened, were overcome with grief and headed home.

7) Did the Jewish elders really sell him out like they did?

ANSWER: Yes, Jesus challenged their spiritual authority, their sincerity, their morality, and threatened to undermine their prestige in the eyes of the people. The Bible clearly describes the Jewish leaders plotting to kill Jesus several days before they actually accomplished the deed (see quotations below). Their plans were delayed because they were afraid to arrest Jesus in public because of His strong following, and they did not know where to find Him at night. Reading Pilate's thoughts and conversations in the Bible, we can see that he was under pressure from Caesar to maintain the peace. The last thing he needed was unrest among the Jews. Jewish leaders used that as leverage against him to force him to execute Jesus. As I said in my comments on your blog, Christians do not view Jews as responsible for Jesus' death. Only so-called Christians like the KKK and other hate groups use Jesus' death as an excuse to persecute Jews. People who call themselves "Christian" and then hate Jews only defile the name of Jesus Christ. As you may know, Christians are among those who support the close U.S. alliance with Israel.

Matthew 26:3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; 4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. 5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among people.

Mat 26:59 "The high priests, conspiring with the Jewish Council, tried to cook up charges against Jesus in order to sentence him to death."

After His arrest: Matthew 27:1 "In the first light of dawn, all the high priests and religious leaders met and put the finishing touches on their plot to kill Jesus."

With Judas' help, they were able to find and arrest Jesus at night on the Mount of Olives (in the garden of Gethsemane), where Jesus and His disciples spent their nights, away from the crowds of Jerusalem. Throughout the previous week, Jesus would teach in the Temple and retire to the Mount of Olives at night. John 18:2 "Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples."

8) Did Judas hang himself?

Yes. Matthew 27:5 "Judas threw the silver coins into the Temple and left. Then he went out and hung himself." The scenes of demonic spirits in the form of children attacking Judas are not in the Bible but are intended to portray the fact that Judas was tormented by the results of his betrayal.

9) What chapters in the bible describe these events?

I've quoted the Bible in each answer. You can read the last three chapters of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the last four chapters of John to find these events. Each gospel presents the events from viewpoint of the author and brings out different sets of facts. Luke, being a doctor, is precise in his observations.

10) What was your take on the movie?

ANSWER: I never realized, before the movie, that the scourging was the most painful and brutal part of his torture. The details of His scourging are not in the Bible, but we know from extra-Biblical sources how they were accomplished. Generically, the movie scene is historically accurate. The most impressive thing to me was the depiction of Jesus as fighting His way to the cross. Struggling to get there! Not struggling to avoid it. The Bible backs this up: in every scene beginning with the arrest, Jesus either allows the action to take place or commands it to take place; this entire process is at His will. At His arrest, the soldiers who arrested Him actually fell to the ground in front of Him (John 18:6). In the movie, Simon, the Cyrene who helped him carry the cross, saying to Him, "You're almost there!" as actual encouragement! If you watch, as Jesus is carrying His cross, soldiers never have to force Him to go forward. On Golgotha, Jesus is clawing His way onto the cross. No soldier is forcing Him onto it. I had never thought of Jesus' actions in that way before. Only by dying on the cross could Jesus fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and accomplish the will of His Father in Heaven. As I said earlier, the movie was too realistic for me to "enjoy" watching my Lord be brutalized, but it had Mel Gibson's desired affect of making me appreciate all the more what Jesus did for me. He took upon Himself my punishment for my sins so that I will not have to.

11) What was the general feeling from the Christian community on the flick?
Jeez, Vic, that's enough for now, I'd say.
Answer what you can, if you wouldn't mind.
Thanks!
Andrew | Homepage | 05.23.05 - 4:49 pm |

ANSWER: Finally! A quality movie that accurately shows Jesus' pain and suffering and the incredible sacrifice that Jesus made for all of us. Most Christians had a reaction similar to mine, I would say. We don't watch this movie every Sunday night. It is too painful. We watch it with reverance and probably with some of the same emotions that Mary, James, and John had when they watched it. The benefit we have, that they did not, is that we understand what is happening and why. Only later, after His Resurrection did the disciples begin to understand why Jesus died on the cross. I will watch it again, but I don't know when. On a side note, we also loved the fact that a big name in Hollywood would dare to make this movie...against the Hollywood culture. We loved it even more when the movie was such a smash hit. Hollywood normally follows the money.  ¶ 4:25 PM| |

  Why The Fight Over Judicial Nominees??

In case you have not heard, tomorrow will bring a moment when Democrat Senators have to decide whether to perform their advise and consent responsibility or to push for a filibuster of the nomination of Priscilla Owen. If they choose to filibuster, then Senator Frist will move for a vote to eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees. This scenario has caused a bitter battle among political activists of both sides. WHY?

Mike Parker, staff writer for The Free Press, stated it simply and clearly:

How can confirmation of men and women to the federal bench breed such a bitter fight? What is at stake that would have Democrats threatening further filibuster and Republicans threatening to invoke the "nuclear option"?

The plain fact is that everyone has come to understand the power of the courts, especially the federal courts. A federal judge is appointed for life, so anyone confirmed to the federal bench today will have the power to shape law for decades.

The power to shape law has been around since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. The most important effect of that decision was to establish the precedent for judicial review. Simply put, this decision said the Constitution means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.

If the Constitution means what the federal courts say it means, then those we put on the federal bench to decide those meanings become vitally important. For most of our history, judges felt bound in their rulings by legislative intent and by precedents.

In recent years, judges have taken a more activist role. Too many have worked to put their perceptions of fairness and equity above the plain text of law. Justices and judges no longer seem bound to the rule of law.

Because the federal judiciary has housed so many activist judges, our citizens have learned that if they want quick changes to public policy, they need to attack in the courts, rather that in the legislatures.

Policy decisions that could never survive public debate and become law in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are now made law in just a few years through court decisions.

But should our courts "make law"?

Should any citizen or group really be able to bypass duly elected legislative bodies and have important issues ultimately decided by unelected judges, judges never accountable to the people?

If the current threat of Senate meltdown demonstrates anything, it shows how much power both Republicans and Democrats perceive federal judges to have.

Have we at last surrendered our Republic? Has it been replaced with a form of "oligarchy" - rule by the elite few?

If Democrats force Republicans to change the rules regarding filibusters, and if the Republican action destroys the "comity" of the Senate as the Democrats claim it will, they have only themselves to blame. Since Democrats have placed judicial activists into the federal courts, we have no choice but to try to win back the courts. In military terms, this is Total War. Winner takes all. Liberal judges are subverting the will of the people, subverting the morality of our nation, and turning our nation away from God. The comity of the Senate is of no consequence compared to what we risk with an arrogant national attitude toward God.

Jeremiah 48
42 Moab will be destroyed from being a people
Because he has become arrogant toward the LORD.

Jeremiah 13
15 Listen and give heed, do not be haughty,
For the LORD has spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
Before He brings darkness
And before your feet stumble
On the dusky mountains,
And while you are hoping for light
He makes it into deep darkness,
And turns it into gloom.
17 But if you will not listen to it,
My soul will sob in secret for such pride;
And my eyes will bitterly weep
And flow down with tears,
Because the flock of the LORD has been taken captive.

  ¶ 3:44 PM| |

  Acceptable to Liberals = Unacceptable

So called "Moderate" Republicans and Democrats are attempting to undermine the Republican Party's ability to seat judges who represent the values of the voting majority of Americans as expressed in the Presidential and State elections. The compromise resolution they are seeking to the current situation is another example of the minority imposing its will on the majority.

An LA Times article says, "The issue at the forefront of current negotiations is a proposal championed by Byrd and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) to create an independent, bipartisan commission — under the auspices of the Senate Judiciary Committee — that would pick a nonbinding pool of nominees to propose to the president to fill any Supreme Court vacancies."

This is not good. At this point in history, any deal that requires passing judicial nominees through a screen that produces judges acceptable to the Democrats is NOT acceptable.  ¶ 10:54 AM| |

  Liberal Paper Supports "The Nuke"

The LA Times supports ridding the Senate of the filibuster. While they take a swipe at conservatives in their opinion piece, they do support what Senator Frist is doing.  ¶ 7:30 AM| |

  Lesson on the History of the Senate Filibuster

Quoting from the article:

Let's return to the question of the filibuster. As you indicated, filibusters of judicial nominations were unheard of until 2003. What about the filibuster itself—how long has that been in existence.

That's an interesting question. The filibuster of legislation, from my research, appears to go back to the 1830s. It was first invoked by Southern senators attempting to defend slavery. Interestingly, there was no filibuster when the country was founded. It was not discussed in the Constitution, it was not discussed in the Federalist Papers, and it was not allowed under Senate rules until 1806, and it wasn't even practiced until the 1830s. The filibuster has been cut back several times. After World War I, it was cut back to allow cloture to be invoked by a two-thirds vote. Interestingly, Senate Democrats made a big, successful push in the 1970s to get cloture cut back, so that you could shut off a filibuster with fewer votes—60 votes instead of 67.

Basically, the filibuster has a very sorry and sad history. It has mostly been used in opposing equal civil rights for African Americans. It's hard to think of a really good and noble use of the filibuster, where a Senate filibuster prevented from passage some bill that everyone later concluded was terrible. But the filibuster of legislation is very well established, unlike the filibuster of judges.

The filibuster of legislation is not provided for in the Constitution, but it does have a very long tradition. The filibuster of judges is something wholly new and different from that.

You said earlier there was one exception when the filibuster had been used against a judicial candidate. Was that the Abe Fortas situation?

That was in 1968. Justice Fortas had been nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be chief justice. And serious ethical issues arose during his confirmation hearings, and Senate Republicans filibustered the Fortas nomination on one test vote. The nomination received less than 50 votes on the Senate floor, so Fortas was not like President Bush's current appointees, all of whom are supported by the majority of the Senate. Ultimately, the allegations of misconduct around Justice Fortas proved to be so serious that he was forced to not only withdraw as a nominee for Chief Justice, but to resign as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So the Fortas situation was dramatically different from the filibusters that Senate Democrats have been waging against President Bush's nominees.

And as you pointed out, the filibuster wasn't at all about his ideology, or political philosophy—or how he might rule. It was solely about whether he was fit for the office?

That is absolutely true. There was only one cloture vote taken and he didn't even get 50 votes, so even Democrats didn't really support him, which makes it very different from the cloture votes that have been taken on Bush nominees, where in some cases there have been more than five attempts to secure cloture, and more than 50 senators voted for cloture, but a willful minority keeps preventing an up-or-down vote from being had on the nominee.

In terms of some of the judicial nominations that have been filibustered by Senate Democrats—and I'm thinking especially of William Pryor's appeals court nomination —do you think a religious test for office is now in effect? That Senate Democrats feel they can pass judgment on people of faith?

Well, that's a hard question to answer. I think many of the questions which were posed to Bill Pryor when he was nominated were questions that bore on his faith—and what his faith was. It did seem at the time that some Senate Democrats were attempting to say that a devout Catholic who followed the teachings of the late Pope John Paul II was unqualified for office, unless he said he wouldn't be influenced by those religious teachings.

I think the treatment of Judge Pryor was extremely unfair. The only issue with Judge Pryor is would he follow the law even if he disagreed with it, and I think there is ample evidence that he would follow the law, even if he disagreed with it.

Senate Democrats have been very coy about whether or not they are imposing a religious test for office, but I think they have verged too close to that line, and they ought to be more respectful of people of faith who are nominated to be judges.

Is the constitutional option an anomaly—as some in the media have portrayed it?

The Senate changes its rules all the time. I think rules changes are quite common, including rules changes with respect to the filibuster. It was only in the 1970s that Senate Democrats made it harder to filibuster by lowering the number of votes from 67 down to 60, but Senate Democrats have made other changes providing that certain bills not be filibusterable. So the Senate certainly changes its rules from time to time.

The key thing here is that the Republicans are actually proposing a solution which actually restores us to the practice that we had from 1789 to 2003. So, in a sense, the people who are really trying to change the rules are Senate Democrats who are trying to filibuster judges. It's Senate Republicans who are trying to put things back to where they have been for most of our history.

  ¶ 7:22 AM| |

  "The Gospel of Billy Graham: Inclusion"

USA TODAY has published another article, this one about Billy Graham, that is very good. It has only one negative aspect...that it takes a swipe at religious conservatives who join the democratic process. The not so hidden message here is, "See, the best example of a Christian man in America, the one who has saved the most souls, does not get involved in politics. Neither should you." The other not so hidden message is that it is wrong to exclude denominations that you do not agree with because Billy Graham is "inclusive."

This article inspires great respect for Billy Graham and makes me nostalgic for the era in which he grew up and came to prominence. In that time, our society accepted Christian values. Christian religions were Christian in the fundamental sense: they accepted the Bible's gospel account of Jesus as truth. In that time, Billy Graham was right to be "inclusive." He was right to focus purely on the gospel of Jesus Christ as the One who has come to be our Lord and Savior, to reunite mankind with God. Billy Graham is right now to maintain that course. Others though, must now point out the sin that is forcing its way into our laws via the secular religion of activist liberal judges. Others must now point out that "progressive" Christian churches are not Christian at all and have fallen into profound apostasy and idolatry.

The message of love and inclusion is still there. Jesus still wants everyone to come to His truth. Jesus still accepts everyone who accepts Him. Those who want to redefine Him, though, are not accepting Him. Progressive churches have simply found a sophisticated way to reject Him while still calling out, "Lord, Lord."

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

  ¶ 11:03 PM| |

  Qualified Conservatives or Judicial Fanatics?

OR "Too Late to be Reasonable"
OR "Accepting Defeat By The Old Double-Standard"
OR "Near Victory is NOT the Time to Compromise"

USA TODAY has published an opinion of the judicial nomination "mess" that we find our nation in today. The magazine suggests a very reasonable solution...one that all reasonable politicians and citizens should applaud. Except for one problem. Democratic members of the Senate have never operated in this reasonable way and have created a situation in which the reasonable way for the Republican majority to respond is with force in order to rectify the imbalance the Democrats have created. To follow the "reasonable" course suggested by USA TODAY would be to allow a double-standard to set the terms of Republican behavior and thereby accept defeat in this judicial nomination fight.

If the following paragraphs I will quote the article and follow-up with a short observation on each point.

Qualified conservatives or judicial fanatics?
May 15, 2005 in USA TODAY

To their supporters, they are a group of all-American success stories: a sharecropper's daughter, a senator's son, a brilliant female law student — able lawyers and jurists who teach Sunday school, clean up national parks and do other good works in their spare time. To their critics, they are seven judicial fanatics, a gang that threatens to rewrite established law on everything from abortion to the environment to gay rights.

President Bush's controversial nominees to the federal appeals courts are the focus of a bitter partisan fight likely to come to a head in Washington this week.

I am always suspicious of the word "partisan," but okay. So far the article is basically balanced.

Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist and pressured by religious conservatives, are threatening to blow up the Senate's rules to break a Democratic filibuster of the disputed seven. Democrats say they'd respond to this "nuclear option" by throwing roadblocks in front of other Senate business.

Senator Frist is not being "pressured" by religious conservatives! He is being supported and cheered on. Big difference. Frist is running and all we are trying to do is block for him. "Blow up?" How about an accurate word that is not so emotionally charged and does not overstate the case, such as "alter." This amounts to USA TODAY urging the gullible and the liberals to fight. After all, no reasonable person wants to "blow up" the Senate rules!

Amid all the wrangling, little attention has been given to the nominees themselves, who deserve to be treated and evaluated as individuals, not as partisan caricatures in a dress rehearsal for the fight over the next Supreme Court nominee.

Good statement. Only omits two words: "by liberals." The correct statement would read, "...little attention has been given BY LIBERALS to the nominees themselves...."

The seven:

• Janice Rogers Brown. An Alabama sharecropper's daughter, she became the first black woman on the California Supreme Court. Critics view her as a conservative activist who ignores established law in favor of her political views. She has supported limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, opposed affirmative action and attacked the propriety of taxing the affluent to provide benefits for the poor.

Here begins the double-standard. It is not okay for conservatives to ignore "established law," but it is okay for liberal activist judges to avoid established law. Only by avoiding established law did we end up with Roe v. Wade.

The courts are now building a precedent for using all kinds of non-established laws to interpret the U. S. Constitution. Gary Bauer writes, "In the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn laws permitting the executions of 16- and 17-year-old killers, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled clearly that the court would increasingly look abroad for guidance in interpreting our Constitution.

"He points out that the court is building a tradition of referring "to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation" of the Constitution. In fact, five justices spent five pages referencing international law in their opinion.

"Unfortunately, this isn't just one renegade case:

• In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the majority opinion was guided by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, Kennedy said that overturning a prior decision upholding sodomy laws was necessary because it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

• In their decision to uphold affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg prominently cited a United Nations' treaty — the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women — even though for more than 20 years, the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify the treaty.

"In fact, in many of its highest-profile cases, the court has cited rulings from nations and international institutions as diverse as the U.N., India, Jamaica, and even that model of justice, Zimbabwe."

• Priscilla Owen. She was first in her law school class and achieved the highest score on the Texas bar exam. Critics call her an out-of-bounds ultraconservative, pointing to her rulings against consumers, working people and minors who want abortions. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow member of the Texas Supreme Court, said one opinion she joined amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Double standard. Conservative judges cannot commit "judicial activism," but liberal judges can. Conservative judges cannot act on their beliefs, but liberal judges can. Why are conservative judges considered to be "out-of-bounds?" Guess who set the boundaries?

• William Pryor. A former Alabama attorney general, Pryor is already an appeals court judge by temporary appointment. Critics have objected to his earlier comments and writings on abortion, separation of church and state, the voting-rights law and gays. He called the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision an abomination and attacked a 2003 gay-rights decision as giving the green light to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. Defenders note he defied right-wing pressure and upheld the law in cases involving the Ten Commandments and Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

How much more even-handed can a judge be? He makes everyone mad!

• William Myers. A successful Washington lawyer, he's never been a judge and has little courtroom experience. But critics' primary concern is his record as a lobbyist for grazing and mining interests. They see him as hostile to environmental protections, health and safety regulations and the legal doctrine of privacy, cornerstone for protection of abortion rights. The American Bar Association gave him its lowest passing rating.

If Mr. Myers doesn't know the law, I might be against him too. However, note that his lack of legal experience isn't the liberals' main objection!

• Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Henry Saad. The three lower-court judges are pawns in a fight over federal judgeships from Michigan that goes back to the Clinton administration. All have clearly conservative records, but none has provoked the level of concern voiced about the others.

No comment.

So who should be confirmed? The Constitution gives the Senate joint responsibility, with the president, for the selection of judges. The standard should be whether a nominee's legal philosophy is within the broad mainstream of established law. Even Democratic leaders concede that at least two of the disputed seven (Griffin and McKeague) meet that minimal test. The records of some of the others, notably Brown and Owen, are more problematic, particularly in their willingness to challenge settled law.

Wait a minute! Who establishes the definition of "main stream?" And who established the main stream itself? This is NOT a reasonable test. It is also a double-standard. Roe v. Wade was not mainstream nor was the 2003 gay rights decision referenced above in the Pryor discussion.

Republicans are insisting on the right to confirm judges by a bare majority, 51 votes. To do that, they propose to outlaw use of the filibuster, under which 60 votes are required to end debate and force a decision.

Wrong again. This one almost sounded reasonable to me. Republicans are insisting on the right to vote for the nominees. Nothing more. We are NOT insisting on a right to confirm the nominees. That would be ridiculous.

In our view, a qualified nominee within the judicial mainstream ought to be able to attract at least a handful of Democratic or independent votes, in addition to the 55 Republican votes. That is not an unreasonable standard for lifetime appointees whose rulings often establish important precedents.

Way too late to be reasonable. And I don't buy the "mainstream" standard at all.

Ramming nominations through the Senate on party-line votes would worsen Congress' image and the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Worse, it would undermine confidence in the independence of the courts — particularly if judges were seen as imposing their religious or political beliefs on others.

Taking there sentences one by one: (1) Liberals have already poisoned the atmosphere. We are just breathing it. (2) Conservative confidence in the courts could not be lower. (3) Judges are already imposing their religious and political beliefs on others.

In the name of the public interest, the Senate should find a compromise. That begins with Democrats accepting qualified conservative nominees. But it also includes Republicans not sticking doggedly by all nominees, regardless of concerns they may raise.

In whose interest, did you say? The public's? That is almost funny. You know that if the liberal media is recommending a compromise, it is because they know the Republicans have the upper hand. It would be foolish for Republicans to compromise at this point. Republicans must be dogged because that has been the attitude of the liberal activist judges and their supporters. Now that we are about to win a big round, the liberals implore us to be reasonable. They play for keeps when they are in power, and so must we.  ¶ 6:08 PM| |

  Standing Firm Against the Filibuster

I am gratified that Senator Frist is standing firm against pressure to allow the Democrats to block the President's judicial nominees. I look forward to seeing the Senate vote up or down on all the President's nominees...and I think we may see that day soon. Here is the text of an announcement by Senator Frist:

STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.

May 13th, 2005 - Upon completion of action on the pending highway bill, the Senate will begin debate on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations. As is the regular order, the Leader will move to act on judge nominations sent to the full Senate by the Judiciary Committee in the past several weeks. Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus.

The Majority Leader will continue to discuss an appropriate resolution of the need for fair up or down votes with the Minority Leader. If they can not find a way for the Senate to decide on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations, the Majority Leader will seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees. After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees; or, to enshrine a new veto by filibuster that both denies all Senators the opportunity to advise and consent and fundamentally disturbs the separation of powers between the branches.

There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate that is too important for parliamentary tactics to speed it up or slow it down until all members who wish have had their say. All members are encouraged to ensure that rhetoric in this debate follows the rules, and best traditions, of the Senate.

It is time for 100 Senators to decide the issue of fair up or down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism. The Minority has made public threats that much of the Senate’s work will be shut down. Such threats are unfortunate.

The Majority Leader has proposed his Fairness Rule: up to 100 hours of debate, and then an up or down vote on circuit and Supreme Court nominations. Further, the Fairness Rule would eliminate the opportunity for blockade of such nominees at the Judiciary Committee. And finally, it will make no changes to the legislative filibuster.

If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her.

Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.

  ¶ 2:47 PM| |

  American Liberal Family?

No, just North Korean children at play.  ¶ 12:18 AM| |

  Open Letter to Senator Lott

STOP the compromise !!!
NO Judicial FILIBUSTERS!
DO take the Constitutional Option.
We want a vote on ALL nominees, NOT SOME.

UPDATE: Nevermind. I called Senator Lott's office today. The nice young intern stated that Sen. Lott has NOT negotiated a compromise nor is he trying to do so. The intern said that Sen. Lott is frustrated because he cannot seem to get anyone to listen to his rebuttal. So, I don't know where Dr. Dobson and others got their information, but it appears to be wrong. GOOD!

On the downside, I called the other Republican senators who are waffling, and all but one are FIRMLY waffling. Senator McCain firmly supports the filibuster because "when Republicans are again in the minority we will need the filibuster." I don't know if that is taking the long view or is short-sighted. My point is that if we let the liberals control the courts, it WON'T MATTER that the Republicans are in the majority!! Activist judges will continue to dictate their will to the people regardless of what the Constitution says and regardless of what the people want.  ¶ 10:45 PM| |

  Open Letter to Secretary Rumsfeld

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, possibly enabled by some mistakes by Air Force Academy officials, are attempting to remove the right of Christians at the Air Force Academy to tell their classmates about their religion and the freedom of military chaplains to teach their congregations that Jesus commanded His followers to spread His Gospel. If they are successful the precedent will be established to attack the Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the entire Armed Forces. Please ensure that the DoD task force that is investigating the "religious climate" at the Academy includes evangelical Christians and that the task force does not limit the freedom of Christians at the Academy to practice their religion. You must act now because, as you know, the task force will produce a report by May 23, 2005. For anyone in your staff who is not familiar with the details, below are articles that tell who is in charge of the task force.

1. Air Force article giving names of who leads the task force and its mission: http://www.usafa.org/cgi-any/newspages.dll/pages?record=239&pagegroup=news&htmlfile=newspages3_news.htm

2. Article by Americans United for Separation of Church and State that tells how they started this investigation: http://au.convio.net/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=q0hqlmcvb1.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7341&security=
1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

3. Here is the URL to the 14 page report by Americans United on the climate at the academy. Most alarming is their implication that a chaplain cannot exhort Christians in a church service to tell their others about Jesus! If the report is accurate, it appears that Academy officials may have made some mistakes, but Americans United is going to try to limit the freedom of Christians to tell others about their religion and the right of chaplains to teach that Christ commanded His followers to tell others about Him. http://www.au.org/pdf/050428AirForceReport.pdf

Please ensure that the task force is balanced and includes evangelical Christian representatives from organizations like Focus on the Family and Family Research Counsel.

Thank You.  ¶ 9:20 AM| |