All

Because the National Day of Prayer is not Enough

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 5/7/2008 11:37 am
So says Faith and Action: "Faith and Action, America's only Christian missionary outreach to government officials located on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, will hold a news conference in front of the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, Thursday, May 8, at 4:00 PM, to announce its national effort to enlist support for a National Ten Commandments Day."

What to Wear?

Submitted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 5/6/2008 5:11 pm

Yesterday—Cinco de Mayo—John McCain announced a new Spanish-language section of his campaign website and plans to speak at the National Council of La Raza convention this summer in an effort to win Hispanic voters. While the Republican Party alienated many Latinos with the rise of the talk-radio-fueled anti-immigrant politics that halted debate over immigration reform, the GOP nominee hopes they will look past that:

McCain stressed his candidacy should be a natural fit for many Hispanics, whom he described as patriotic, loyal, family-oriented and appreciative of the GOP's opposition to abortion rights and support of small businesses.

"Everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message," McCain said.

And indeed, McCain once seemed “tailor-made” to reach out to Hispanics, as he was the standard-bearer for comprehensive immigration reform, but over the course of the Tancredo-inflected primary, McCain took himself in for an alteration, caving to demands from right-wing activists and converting to an “enforcement-first” position. By shifting to the right, he may have saved his campaign for the GOP nomination, but it’s not clear how he can continue to mollify the anti-immigrant crowd while reaching out to Hispanics.

Indeed, within hours of his announcement, WorldNetDaily was linking McCain to conspiracy theories about “reconquista” and “Aztlan,” asserting that the National Council of La Raza is “a radical Hispanic lobby tied to the movement to reconquer the Southwestern U.S. that was part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848.”

Petty, Partisan, and Disingenuous

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 5/6/2008 4:36 pm

In delivering his “if you liked Bush’s judicial nominees, you’re going to love mine” speech today, John McCain blasted Democratic “obstruction” of President Bush’s nominees and held himself up as a paragon of virtue and integrity:

Of course, in the daily routine of Senate obstructionism, presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all. These courts were created long ago by the Congress itself, on what then seemed the safe assumption that future Senates would attend to their duty to fill them with qualified men and women nominated by the president. Yet at this moment there are 31 nominations pending, including several for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that serves North Carolina. Because there are so many cases with no judges to hear them, a "judicial emergency" has been declared here by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. And a third of the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is vacant. But the alarm has yet to sound for the Senate majority leadership. Their idea of a judicial emergency is the possible confirmation of any judge who doesn't meet their own narrow tests of party and ideology. They want federal judges who will push the limits of constitutional law, and, to this end, they have pushed the limits of Senate rules and simple courtesy.

…

And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make.

So, to hear McCain tell it, nobody but him in the Senate understands “simple courtesy” or the basic rule that senators should defer to the president on nominations or that voting against a nominee is “petty, partisan, and disingenuous.”

It is not surprising that McCain would use this opportunity to attack the Democrats on this issue – after all, he is trying to win over the Right and, as we all know, they just love to fight over judicial nominations.  

Of course, it is not as if Republicans have been good stewards of the confirmation process, as McCain realized back before he was busy pandering for right-wing votes:

“We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee.”

Nor has McCain always upheld his own standard of deferring to the president, as evidenced by his own voting record during the Clinton administration:

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of H. Lee Sarokin to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of H. Lee Sarokin: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of Rosemary Barkett to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 11th Circuit: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of William A. Fletcher to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 9th Circuit: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 2nd Circuit: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of Ronnie L. White to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of Ann L. Aiken to be US District Judge for the OR District: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of Susan Oki Mollway to be U.S. Dist. Judge Central Dist. Hawaii: McCain - Nay

On the Confirmation of James J. Brady to be United States District Judge Middle District of Louisiana: McCain - Nay

Of course, all of these Clinton nominees must have been unqualified because otherwise it would have been petty, partisan, and disingenuous of McCain to have voted against them.

Or perhaps McCain only applies this standard to Supreme Court nominations, which would explain his gushing support of Robert Bork.

Give ‘Em What They Want, John

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 5/6/2008 9:53 am

As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat:

In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.

"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.

Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."

As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election:

Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it. 

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform.

“I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said. Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president.

“You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich. 

And while McCain is delivering his remarks, Republican National Committee officials will be courting right-wing leaders on this effort having “invited social conservative leaders based in and around Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting Tuesday morning where former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) will give them a preview of McCain’s remarks.”   

Already McCain surrogate Sen. Sam Brownback is making the rounds assuring the Right that it’ll like what it hears and, judging by excerpts of McCain's remarks and preliminary press coverage, it certainly looks like that will be the case:  

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Tuesday he would appoint judges in the mold of conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he were elected in November.

In an excerpt from a speech McCain was to give in Winston-Salem on Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference," McCain said.

In fact, so sure is the McCain camp that this speech will win over the Right that it is reaching out to them via GOPUSA seeking donations:   

We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular - the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.

There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.

Sekulow Recalls John Roberts as Key Anti-Abortion Ally

Submitted by Anonymous on Monday, 5/5/2008 5:52 pm

During the debate over John Roberts’s confirmation as Chief Justice three years ago, many of his proponents claimed that his experience as a right-wing legal advocate for Republican administrations was totally irrelevant in gauging the agenda he would bring to the Supreme Court. That was just a job, Americans were told, and the nominee was presented as an uninterested “umpire” who had practically never taken a position on anything at all.

At the same time, backers of Roberts assured the Religious Right that he would be their champion. For example, Jay Sekulow—head of Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and one of the White House’s key liaisons to the far Right—felt confident enough to assert that “he knew that Judge Roberts's heart was in it. ‘He doesn't argue just to argue.’”

Last month, speaking to an anti-abortion group in Memphis, Sekulow related a few more details about why he’d felt so confident in Roberts:

In the early 1990s, Sekulow was representing the militant anti-abortion activists Operation Rescue in a case before the Supreme Court over physically blocking access to clinics (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic). Meanwhile, Operation Rescue was organizing more blockades in Wichita, Kansas, and planning more large protests.

According to Sekulow, Roberts—then deputy solicitor general—called him up and hatched a strategy: In the upcoming protest in Wichita, don’t block access, and that will give cover for the administration to argue on your behalf in the case where you did block access.

And indeed, the George H.W. Bush Administration joined alongside Operation Rescue in the Bray case, arguing that blocking women’s access to health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women. The Supreme Court agreed, leading Congress to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Reflecting on the upcoming presidential elections, Sekulow reminded the audience of the most important results of the current presidency: “Roberts and Alito. You don’t have to say a whole lot more.”

McCain: Bork Was No "Maverick Jurist"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Monday, 5/5/2008 4:26 pm

John McCain is planning to be in North Carolina tomorrow where he is scheduled to give a speech on judicial nominations:

John McCain’s campaign said Friday that Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback will join the presumptive GOP nominee in North Carolina next week for a major speech on judicial appointments.

Both Thompson and Brownback have endorsed the Arizona senator, and both Republicans presented themselves throughout the Republican primary battle as “consistent conservatives,” particularly regarding social issues and judicial appointments.

The speech, to be held Tuesday at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, will be just one element of a broader outreach to conservatives next week, according to the campaign.

McCain is expected to discuss the kinds of judges he would appoint up and down the federal bench.

Why he is doing this on the day of the Democratic primary in the state is hard to understand.  Perhaps he is hoping to work his way into the press coverage … or perhaps he is hoping to keep a rather low profile while he delivers remarks designed solely to, once again, assure the GOP’s right-wing base that he’ll appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court without attracting too much attention from the media.  

Either way, he’s probably hoping that the press won’t bother to actually write about his record on judges as exemplified by, say, his 1987 support of Robert Bork [PDF]:

I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without  any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament.  I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.  

…

First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary.  Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint.  He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues.  He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life.  I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.  

…

I have no problem with my colleagues voting against Bork if they truly believe he is unfit for the Supreme Court – although I personally cannot conceive of how you could reach that conclusion … I believe Robert Bork will be an outstanding Justice and contributor on that Court … Robert Bork deserves our support and will be a great Supreme Court Justice.  

In his endorsement, McCain delivered a lengthy defense of Bork’s controversial views, stating that Roe v. Wade is "the clearest example of judicial 'legislation'" and that the rules it set out are "nonsense."   Nor did McCain appear to be a fan of the right to privacy, stating that it was entirely "created by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case."

Joining McCain will be Fred Thompson, who shares McCain’s affinity for Justices like Roberts and Alito and is already out making the pitch for McCain on the issue of judges, and Sen. Sam Brownback, who endorsed McCain after his own presidential campaign folded in the early-going, in part to help pay off his campaign debt, but also because he was promised that he “would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court.”   That undoubtedly appealed to Brownback because, as he repeatedly stated when he was campaigning, he wanted nothing more than “to be the president that appoints the justice that's needed vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade."  While he won’t get that opportunity to do that directly, advising McCain on Supreme Court nominations will still allow him to play an important role in finding a Supreme Court nominee that will finally eliminate the right to choose.

The Nazi Thing

Submitted by Anonymous on Monday, 5/5/2008 10:00 am

Zirkle and the Nazi PartyTony Zirkle’s 15 minutes of swastika-draped fame were widely reported last month, when the Indiana congressional candidate spoke at an American Nazi Party celebration of Adolf Hitler’s birthday. Zirkle, whose campaign warns of a link between Jews and pornography, offered the comical explanation that, despite the oversize Hitler portrait and Nazi flags directly behind him, the swastika armbands of the men on either side of him, and the words “Seig Heil” on the cake, “he didn't believe the event he attended included people necessarily of the Nazi mindset, pointing out the name isn't Nazi, but Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.” The candidate was duly reviled by his opponent in the Republican primary race, as well as by everybody else, as an isolated racist crackpot.

However, the report on the matter by the right-wing WorldNetDaily—a product of the anti-Bill Clinton Arkansas Project that now hosts columnists such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Chuck Norris—offered an unusual twist. After reviewing the story and printing a number of random comments from other websites (a common journalistic technique at WND), the article tried to put it in a kind of context: "Other congressional candidates have raised eyebrows with their speeches, too," it stated. But its only example was a quote from Rep. Keith Ellison comparing the time after September 11, 2001, when the Bush Administration asserted new executive privileges, to the time after the burning of the Reichstag, when Hitler consolidated his powers.

While Ellison took heat for using the metaphor, there is, to put it mildly, a pretty obvious distinction between making a rhetorical comparison of your opponents' tactics to historical events in Nazi Germany, and actually forging an alliance with present-day Nazis based on apparently shared values. So why did WND choose this as its only attempt at context?

Ellison, of course, was the first Muslim member of Congress, and after his election in 2006, the Right launched an effort to portray his presence in Washington as a dire threat to the nation. WorldNetDaily offered obsessive coverage through dozens of flimsy, paranoid articles with titles such as “Doubts grow over Muslim lawmaker's loyalty” and “Muslim congressman called 'security' issue.”

Since WND is so desperate for an example of an anti-Semitic political figure, it’s fortunate that Ted Pike provided a timely reminder. Pike, head of the National Prayer Network, has been a frequent source of quotes for WND whenever the site covered proposed federal hate-crimes protections, most recently in December.

Pike is best-known, however, for pushing out anti-Semitic propaganda along with his father, a radio talker in the 1980s. As People For the American Way reported in a press release from 1989, Pike was warning that there was “a tendency toward Jewish domination of society,” that “Jewish international bankers” were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and that the state of Israel was “the first stage in Satan’s plan to take this world from Christ and give it to the Antichrist.” Twenty years ago, Pike was warning that the Jewish motivation behind hate-crimes legislation was to silence churches; today, he warns of the “homosexual agenda.”

We were reminded of Pike—and his place as a privileged WorldNetDaily commentator—after he sent out an e-mail alert two weeks ago complaining that the Southern Poverty Law Center had cited the National Prayer Network as a hate group:

Jewish activist groups want to increasingly broaden the terms "hate" and "anti-Semitism" to include evangelicals. …

Jewish activists thus display a truly hateful intent—to harm Christians and deprive them of freedom. Such activists work to warp public and government perceptions of Christian conservatives—demonizing us as potential sources of “homophobic,” anti-Semitic bigotry and possible violence. SPLC alleges a 48 percent increase of threat from the "radical right" since 2000. Jewish attack groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way, smear “homophobic” evangelicals as being part of this “threat.”

After defaming Christians as "haters," Jewish supremacists want to actually outlaw Christian political activity and evangelism. The ADL created hate crime laws that will particularly outlaw reproof of sodomy and evangelism of non-Christians, especially Jews.

(Photo: The Times of Northwest Indiana.)

Phony 'Official' Group Prays for More Bush Judges

Submitted by Anonymous on Thursday, 5/1/2008 5:40 pm

This morning, President Bush celebrated a National Day of Prayer, an annual non-sectarian rite going back decades. A much younger tradition was also observed: a phony “official” Day of Prayer group tried to usurp the national celebration with its own Religious Right-flavored broadcast.

As we explained last year, the National Day of Prayer Task Force—chaired by Shirley Dobson, James Dobson’s wife—is in fact an independent group whose platform runs contrary to the multi-faith spirit of the law. NDPTF specifically excludes participation by “Non-Judeo-Christian” groups, promotes fighting a “cultural war,” and its volunteers must swear their belief in an inerrant Bible.

Despite efforts this year by Jews on First, the Interfaith Alliance, and others to clarify that NDPTF is not a federal agency, confusion remains. The president himself helped to muddy the waters during the official White House ceremony, inviting the Dobsons and others involved with NDPTF and opening his remarks by thanking Shirley Dobson “for being the Chairman of the National Day of Prayer.”

The NDPTF ceremony this afternoon featured segments on the three branches of government, each featuring a prominent Republican speaker. The representative of the judicial branch was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, perhaps the most extreme-right of the controversial appeals-court nominees put forth by Bush. After Brown spoke on the nation’s “spiritual trajectory” (through events such as putting “In God We Trust” on coins), Vonette Bright—widow of Bill Bright and co-founder of Campus Crusade for Christ—led a prayer for more right-wing judges to “uphold God’s plan for marriage” and ban abortion:

Suburban Immigration Warriors Confuse Press

Submitted by Anonymous on Thursday, 5/1/2008 2:26 pm

Prince William County, Virginia did something this week to address social and financial problems stemming from its recent crackdown on immigrants. What exactly it did is not entirely clear:

Washington Post headline: “Pr. William Softens Policy on Immigration Status Checks.”

Washington Times headline: “Prince William stiffens crackdown on illegals.”

Washington Examiner headline: “Pr. William softens illegal immigration policy.”

NBC 4 played it safe with “Prince William Votes To Change Immigration Enforcement.”

So what happened? As the Post and the Examiner report, the board of supervisors in this wealthy D.C. suburb, where police have been checking the immigration status of crime suspects, changed the policy slightly. Now the police only check the status of those arrested. (A proposal to check only those arrested and put in jail failed by a wide margin.)

While the Washington Times immigration coverage is always suspect, and the paper’s editorial page has been pushing the county to stay the course, in this case they do point to another change in policy: whereas before, local police needed “probable cause” that the person was undocumented (wonder what that means?), they now check everybody. Broadening the law, claimed the supervisors, would help protect them from lawsuits for racial profiling. But as Chairman Corey Stewart, leader of the crackdown, asserted, “This will increase the number of people who will have their immigration status checked.”

In any event, it’s hardly the “reconsideration” of the crackdown we were teased with in April.

Persecution of Arabic-Language Instruction Reexamined

Submitted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 4/30/2008 12:18 pm

The New York Times has published an extensive feature revisiting the unfortunate public battle that emerged last summer over the opening of a charter school offering Arabic language and cultural instruction. As we wrote in September, while 67 other schools in New York City were earning applause for dual-language instruction, the announcement of the Khalil Gibran International Academy resulted in a right-wing backlash that seemed to presume Arab American culture to be of a piece with international terrorism. In the end, a handful of fringe websites and third-string commentators, with promotion by two conservative newspapers, managed to force the resignation of the respected founding principal and to tarnish the new school, essentially sabotaging the first year of the educational effort.

Daniel Pipes led the charge against the school and its architect, Debbie Almontaser. He described to the Times how he sees openly Muslim Americans as posing a new threat, not of violence or law-breaking but of cultural change:

The conflict tapped into a well of post-9/11 anxieties. But Ms. Almontaser’s downfall was not merely the result of a spontaneous outcry by concerned parents and neighborhood activists. It was also the work of a growing and organized movement to stop Muslim citizens who are seeking an expanded role in American public life. The fight against the school, participants in the effort say, was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle.

“It’s a battle that’s really just begun,” said Daniel Pipes, who directs a conservative research group, the Middle East Forum, and helped lead the charge against Ms. Almontaser and the school.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, critics of radical Islam focused largely on terrorism, scrutinizing Muslim-American charities or asserting links between Muslim organizations and violent groups like Hamas. But as the authorities have stepped up the war on terror, those critics have shifted their gaze to a new frontier, what they describe as law-abiding Muslim-Americans who are imposing their religious values in the public domain.

Mr. Pipes and others reel off a list of examples: Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis who have refused to take passengers carrying liquor; municipal pools and a gym at Harvard that have adopted female-only hours to accommodate Muslim women; candidates for office who are suspected of supporting political Islam; and banks that are offering financial products compliant with sharia, the Islamic code of law.

The danger, Mr. Pipes says, is that the United States stands to become another England or France, a place where Muslims are balkanized and ultimately threaten to impose sharia.

“It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia,” Mr. Pipes said. “It is much easier to see how, working through the system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam.”

Almontaser is suing the city for forcing her resignation, but it’s remarkable that such a small group of people—led by activists like Pipes and Aryeh Spero, who are as a rule ignored—could intimidate New York City, armed only with overactive imaginations and a paranoid suspicion of Muslims.