Montana

Another Loss In The Right’s Anti-Gay Legal Crusade

Over the last several months, we've been chronicling episodes in which Religious Right legal groups have stepped in to represent former lesbians who have decided that their former partners ought to have no access to the children they had raised together. Liberty Counsel has been active in several cases, as has the Alliance Defense Fund.

Today, the Montana Supreme Court decided another case in which the ADF was involved, regarding another custody battle involving two women who could not get married, as Montana does not grant marriage equality, and were unable to adopt children together, as state law apparently does not allow that either. One of the women, Barbara Maniaci, adopted two children and the two women raised them together for ten years until they split and Maniaci married a man and then decided that her former partner should not have access to the children.

The state Supreme Court diagreed:

The Montana Supreme Court Tuesday upheld parental rights for a Missoula woman who'd been part of a same-sex couple that cared for two adopted children, saying she's entitled to joint custody of the kids.

Supporters of the 6-1 decision hailed it as a victory for all parents, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.

"This is a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors," said Betsy Griffing, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana.

Justice James Nelson also issued a special concurrence, in which he wrote a blistering denunciation of discrimination against homosexuals.

"Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry," he wrote. "Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals."

And, predictably, professional anti-gay activists are outraged:

Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation, called the court's decision "egregious."

"Basically, what the court did in this decision is said that no longer does a parent have to be declared unfit for a third party non-parent to be able to abridge the natural parents' rights and authorities over that child," Laszloffy told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "Now you just have to prove that that child has a psychological connection to you. And you can apply for, fight for, sue for parental rights and it's a crapshoot, you might get them, you might not."

While Laszloffy said he believed the issue of homosexual "rights" was not the original impetus behind the case, he noted, "I'm sure that the Montana Supreme Court is always looking for cases to push the homosexual agenda."

Attorney Matt McReynolds with the Pacific Justice Institute, which filed an amicus brief in the case, agreed.

"It actually seems like the plaintiff was favored in this case just because she was a lesbian," Reynolds told LSN. "It's fairly shocking how the Court wouldn't allow this person who had left the lesbian lifestyle to be freed from it - her and her children.

"It's very disturbing that someone who wants to get out of this lifestyle can still be trapped in it for years to come ... by someone who has no legal or adoptive relationship with the children."

Montana TEA Party Leader Taxed Too Much Already

Apparently, on July 4th we are going to be treated to another round of TEA Party lunacy:

American Family Association has Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party rallies scheduled in 1,145 cities for July 4. The family organization is opposed to the spending policies promoted by President Obama. Such policies call for record spending and deficits.

“Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying the bill for President Obama’s reckless spending spree,” said AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon. “Our national debt is already a trillion dollars, and the president is planning to spend trillions more. It is a crime and a sin to place this heavy debt on our children,” he stated.

For many of the protesters, these TEA Party efforts stem from ideology and partisanship, while for others they just might stem from more personal reasons ... such as owing the IRS $13,000:

A Bozeman political activist who persistently calls for the government to lower taxes had amassed an income tax debt of almost $13,000 before a bankruptcy judge relieved him of much of that burden, court records show.

Henry Kriegel, a radio talk show host and president of Montanans for Tax Reform, owed the Internal Revenue Service $10,326 in taxes, interest and penalties from taxes levied on him in 2003, the documents show. Last month, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ralph Kirscher ordered the IRS to relieve Kriegel of the debt as part of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed by Kriegel earlier this year. Kirscher also ordered Kriegel to pay the IRS $2,547 in taxes and penalties from 2007.

Kriegel was at the forefront of the tax day tea party protest held April 15 in Bozeman, and he is helping to organize a subsequent protest planned for July 4 n demonstrations that protest high government spending, the growing national debt and taxes.

...

Kriegel has been an ardent critic of the U.S. tax code. Montanans for Tax Reform advertises itself as being “about smaller government, less taxes and keeping more of your hard-earned money in your pocket.” Since 2002, the group has sponsored the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written promise to oppose tax increases that is signed by legislators and candidates for office.

He has a contract with Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform to lead monthly meetings of state and local taxpayer groups, social conservative groups, business groups and legislators to promote limited government policies.

While it may be ironic that it was the tax-payer-funded federal court system that wiped out an estimated $6,000 of Kriegel's debt to the IRS, he's not about to let that stop his anti-tax activism: 

Kriegel said his own history with taxes did not dissuade him from speaking out publicly about the tax code.

“I don’t believe that disqualifies me from speaking out on the issues I believe in,” he said. “I could have taken the choice of cowering in the darkness or I could choose to speak out against the largest issues of our time.”

“Taxes are too high. Government is too large,” he said.

He said the tax day tea party and upcoming demonstration had little to do with taxes, saying the focus of the demonstrations is high government spending and the growing national debt.

And, he said, he plans to continue his activism.

“The tea party movement is much bigger than me. I don’t plan on backing down. I don’t plan on backing down at all,” he said.

Considering that the acronym "TEA" in the name stands for "taxed enough already," the idea that these protest aren't about taxes is laughable ... but not as laughable as the fact that a man who owed the IRS $13,000 in taxes and penalties is contracted to Grover Norquist's organization and leading local TEA Party efforts.

Right Wing Reaction to Sotomayor

So, anything happen while I was on vacation? 

Oh yeah, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.  And guess what?  The Right already doesn't like her:

Family Research Council:

"President Obama has chosen a nominee with a compelling personal story over judicial pick with a solid constitutional judicial philosophy. A compelling personal story is no substitute for allegiance to the Constitution and its sound application to public life.

"Judge Sotomayor's failure to premise her decisions on the text of the Constitution has resulted in an extremely high rate of reversal before the high court to which she has been nominated.

"With that fact in mind Judge Sotomayor appears to subscribe to a very liberal judicial philosophy that considers it appropriate for judges to impose their personal views from the bench. President Obama promised us a jurist committed to the 'rule of law,' but, instead, he appears to have nominated a legislator to the Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family:

"From what we know about her, Judge Sotomayor considers policy-making to be among a judge’s roles, no matter what the law says," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "She disregards the notion of judicial impartiality."

...

Hausknecht said: "The president's professed desire for judges with 'empathy' rather than impartiality might deny the country what the Founding Fathers intended and wrote into the Constitution — judges who dispense justice without regard for the status of any party that comes before them."

Traditional Values Coalition:

To no one’s surprise, President Obama has nominated an individual who supports his position of deciding cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law. Although Sotomayor spoke strongly of the importance of the rule of law and principles of the Founding Fathers, her previous decisions contradict this, as do the previous statements and promises of President Obama.

...

Judge Sotomayor fits the “empathy” qualification. During a law conference, she has openly bragged that she views her role as a judge as a policymaker and activist who will impose her leftist political views on the rest of us. She may have empathy for the poor, gays and minorities – but she is likely to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. She is clearly the ideal nominee for President Obama but will be a disaster for our legal system.

Concerned Women for America:

CWA President Wendy Wright said, "A necessary quality for a Supreme Court justice is to be committed to equal treatment of the law, regardless of ethnicity or sex. Sonia Sotomayor has an extensive record and several troubling opinions where she seems willing to expand certain 'rights' beyond what the Constitution establishes and the appropriate Supreme Court precedent. Revealing her immodest bias, she stated that a 'Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' Congress needs to thoroughly vet Judge Sotomayor and Americans deserve enough time to evaluate her record and her announced bias for certain people. Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senate's duty to do so."

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA's Policy Director for Legal Issues, said, "Much has been made in the media about a Hispanic woman being nominated, but the truth is that none of that should matter as the Senate fulfills its 'advise and consent' role. What matters are the judge's judicial temperament and her view of the Constitution. We must determine if Judge Sotomayor will respect the Constitution as written or legislate from the bench. She has made some disconcerting statements that should require everyone to examine her record with an open mind and reach some conclusions. For example, she said once that 'policy was made at the appellate level,' a very dangerous way of looking at the role of a judge for those of us who value our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution."

Judicial Confirmation Network:

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

"She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

"She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

Committee for Justice:

Having told colleagues that I thought President Obama was too smart to pick someone with as much baggage as Sonia Sotomayor, I was surprised to learn of her nomination. Many other people were surprised as well, given both the widespread expectation that Obama would choose an intellectual heavyweight and Obama’s own recent statement that he would not make gender or race the major factors in his selection. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley summed it up well on MSNBC yesterday, expressing bewilderment that Obama chose Sotomayor when heavyweights like “[Seventh Circuit Judge] Diane Wood would have met all his criteria.”

The only plausible explanation for Sotomayor’s selection is that the President was boxed in by demands from Hispanic and women’s groups that he pick one of their own. What else could explain his choice of a nominee who presents such a big target for conservatives and so clearly forces red state Democratic senators to choose between the values of their constituents and those of the nominee?

Priests for Life:

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, says he has just one question about Judge Sonia Sotomayor as she is nominated by President Obama for the Supreme Court: "Does justice include the right to tear the arms and legs off of babies, crush their skulls, and treat them as medical waste?"

"We all draw the line somewhere. An avowed racist or anti-Semite is not acceptable on the Supreme Court. Why should we give a pass to the violence of abortion?"

Operation Rescue:

"Just as Obama has attempted to abuse the process of law in reshaping America to the far left, so too Sonia Sotomayor believes in the abuse of judicial authority having stated that courts can create social policy," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "This philosophy dangerously overreaches the duties of the judicial branch and flies in the face of the separation of powers doctrine."

"Sonia Sotomayor is a far left ideologue that blurs the lines between the legislature and judiciary and will surely be a rubber stamp for Obama's radical abortion agenda, which is opposed by the majority of Americans."

Organized for Life:

Peter Shinn, National Director of Organized for Life, commented that, "Sonia Sotomayor is out of step with the American people. Quoted in 2005 as believing that policy comes from the bench, she stands counter to the American people's desire to end the tragedy of abortion."

Ruben Obregon, President of Organized for Life, added, "In nominating Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama chose to further his own pro-abortion agenda rather than seek common ground on the abortion issue. Instead of faithfully representing America's views, President Obama has added another reliably liberal member to the Court who will continue to impose the Court's will on the people. Pro-life activists, the Davids in this epic battle for life, can only stop the Goliath of the White House by banding together and signing the petition at www.stopsotomayor.com."

Vision America:

Scarborough warned: "At age 54, Sotomayor could be a member of the United States Supreme Court for the next 20 years -- or longer. As a dedicated liberal, we know her views on abortion, gay marriage and reverse-discrimination -- whether or not she's ruled directly on these issues."

"That much power simply can't be bestowed by a compliant Senate," Scarborough observed. "This nomination must be stopped dead in its tracks. Sonia Sotomayor isn't a 'centrist,' she's a disaster at every level."

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Women are best protected by the rule of law -- and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal preference, ideology or painful personal history inform judgment. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause. Given what we know about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy -- including her support of policymaking from the bench -- Americans should be concerned about the role of personal preference in her overall judicial philosophy.

When it comes to protecting all human life, one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's record of support for judicial activism offers little comfort that she will be a friend to the unborn on the Supreme Court. As the Senate fulfills its Constitutional role to 'advise and consent,' Senators should ask the hard questions to thoroughly assess Sotomayor's judicial temperament, and reaffirm the authentic feminist standard of blind justice for all."

Randall Terry:

"The filibuster trail was blazed by President Obama, VP Biden, Majority Leader Reed, Sec State Clinton, and other Democrat leaders in 2005 with Justice Alito. Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe judge?

"The Democrats have two weak links in their chain; Senators Nelson (NE) and Casey (PA) who both declare they are 'pro-life.' The question of conscience and courage is on the table: will they choose babies' lives or party loyalty?"

Ken Blackwell:

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Mike Huckabee (after first mistakenly calling her "Maria Sotomayor"):

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bi-partisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the "feelings" of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.

Richard Viguerie actually issued three different releases, including this one:

"The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor unites all wings of the conservative movement--economic, foreign policy, social, traditional, neocon, and libertarian--in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years.

"Judge Sotomayor frightens all conservatives. As the debate over her nomination heats up, conservatives will provide the primary opposition to Sotomayor and will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using direct mail, the Internet, talk radio, cable TV, You Tube, and other forms of new and alternative media.

"It was sad to read that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comment on the Sotomayor nomination reflected the typical reaction Americans have come to expect from Republican politicians when he said that Republicans will reserve judgment on Sotomayor.

"No wonder conservatives now look to talk show hosts and other unelected conservatives for leadership, rather then wet-finger Republican politicians who always seeming to be waiting to see the direction of the political winds.

"It remains to be seen how active and effective Republican politicians will be on this historic fight, but conservatives are on the field, engaged, and ready to battle President Obama and all U.S. Senators who support Sotomayor."

This collection is actually just a fraction of the statements made in opposition to Sotomayor by right-wing groups, but it's more than enough to drive home the point that they appear intent on doing everything they can to oppose her nomination.

McCain Winning Over the Right With SCOTUS Talk

John McCain's courting of Religious Right leaders and activists started off badly, culminating in the Rod Parsley/John Hagee debacle back in May, but since then, the campaign seems to have regained its footing and subsequent lower-profile efforts have been startlingly effective:

As we noted a few weeks ago, McCain quietly met with a handful of right-wing leaders at which he was pressured to start talking more in public about the issues they care about and, as if to signal that he heard the message loud and clear, announced the next day that he supported the anti-gay California Marriage Amendment. From that point, things began to pick up and just last week, he secured the support of a bevy of right-wing activists like Mat Staver, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Phyllis Schlafly, Rick Scarborough, and David Barton.

Just last week we were noting how the Right, even though not traditionally supportive of McCain, was working diligently to remind its supporters that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake in the next election. It seems that the McCain campaign has been playing up that angle in its outreach efforts as well:

Mr. Burress said he, Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, former interior secretary and Christian Coalition leader Donald P. Hodel, WallBuilders founder David Barton, Liberty Council counsel Mathew Staver and others have been moved to work for the election of Mr. McCain.

He cited mostly their trust in several McCain promises - to make judicial appointments that will resemble that of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia, to "get serious" on abortion and same-sex marriage, and to push values issues in general.

It looks like this is a coordinated message that the McCain campaign and its surrogates are committed to spreading far and wide:

A pro-family activist and former presidential candidate says people of faith cannot afford to endure four years of Barack Obama in hopes that he will be defeated in 2012. Gary Bauer says it's all about the Supreme Court.

...

But Bauer, who is chairman of American Values, says the American public cannot afford to wait four years. "Today we're only one vote away from having a pro-life, pro-family majority in the Supreme Court," he observes. "If Barack Obama is elected, that opportunity will lost, I believe, for several decades."

CNSNews reports that Sen. Fred Thompson brought that message to the National Right to Life Committee's annual convention last week and that it was well-received:

The 2008 presidential election is "foremost about the United States Supreme Court," the president of the National Right to Life Committee said at the group's annual convention Thursday.

"It's not the economy, stupid," said Dr. Wanda Franz, referencing President Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan. "No, for us, it's the Supreme Court."

...

"It is absolutely vital to have a court that is on the right side," said Gregg Trude, executive director of Montana Right to Life.

"We are very hopeful that the next Supreme Court vacancy is filled by someone who believes what the Constitution says and believes that it is the role of judges to interpret the law and not to make the law," Lauinger said.

So popular is the message, in fact, that McCain himself made sure to work it into his own remarks at the NRLC convention:

I will look for accomplished men and women, with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment, to strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Sam Alito, my friend the late William Rehnquist, jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. I have been pro-life, my entire public career.

AFA Claims Hate Crimes Bill Would Lead to Preachers 'Being Charged with Hate Speech'

Plus “Polygamy will be legalized” and “Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.” Focus urges opposition. Also: Hate crimes bill in Montana.

States Reject Federal REAL ID Law

Montana bill would ignore national ID requirements, Maine urges Congress to overturn it. Also: Hawaii, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont and Washington.

State Ballot Measures Target Judges

In Colorado, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota (“Jail 4 Judges”), reports Washington Times.

Groups Pushing 'Property Rights' Measures All Tied to New York Investor

Like in Montana, California’s eminent domain reform proposition is attached to an anti-regulation “takings project” provision.

Grassroots Apparently Imported in State Spending Initiatives

Earlier this week, USA Today reported how backlash from last year’s Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain has led to ballot initiatives in eleven states to reform the process – and how in some cases, the “property rights” movement is coupling eminent domain initiatives with other measures, such as one in three states advancing an obscure libertarian theory called “regulatory takings” which is designed to undermine zoning and environmental laws. According to USA Today, the ballot initiatives are “bankrolled largely by libertarian organizations controlled by New York City real estate investor Howie Rich. The groups, Americans for Limited Government and the Fund for Democracy, have donated $4 million to ballot drives in eight states.”

Last week’s episode of “NOW” on PBS delved into the effort in Montana to advance three initiatives: one to limit eminent domain, one to make it easier to recall judges, and one to implement a constitutional cap on spending, much like the controversial “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” that Colorado voters partially rescinded two years ago.

“NOW” tries to look at who financed the effort in Montana.

[PBS correspondent Maria] HINOJOSA: You're talking $600,000—to put your initiatives on the ballot in Montana. Where does the— that money come from, the 600,000—

[SOS Treasurer Trevis] BUTCHER: From major donors

HINOJOSA: Can you, can you name some of them?

BUTCHER: No. And— and the reason—

HINOJOSA: And why— why wouldn't you name them?

BUTCHER: Because our— our membership is a private list

HINOJOSA: Do you think that if you were to disclose who funds your organization, who's been funding the initiatives, the $600,000 that this has cost, do you think that if you disclose that, that that might influence how voters voted on these initiatives?

BUTCHER: What does it matter? I— I don't see that there's a relationship there. The reality is—

HINOJOSA: If it doesn't matter, then—

BUTCHER: —is the voters are the ones that get to do that.

HINOJOSA: But why not reveal who is helping to fund you? What is so controversial about revealing the names of foundations, or corporations that are national, and revealing it to your fellow Montanans? Why not?

BUTCHER: Why should we? You know? I mean, that's— that's the reality.

As PBS shows, all signs point to Howard Rich, who is providing 99 percent of the funding for similar initiatives in Oklahoma, Arizona, and Missouri. PBS has the video and transcript.

Earlier this month, the initiatives were stricken from the ballot after a judge found a “pervasive and general pattern of fraud” by out-of-state signature gatherers.

Montana pig Michigan pig

The anti-spending pig used in the Montana was also used in Michigan. (PBS)

Empty Threats

Remember a few months ago when some on the Right, especially James Dobson, were threatening Republicans that there would be negative electoral repercussions unless the GOP worked harder to promote the right-wing agenda?

Some of President Bush's most influential conservative Christian allies are becoming openly critical of the White House and Republicans in Congress, warning that they will withhold their support in the midterm elections unless Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion. 

 

In the last several weeks, Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the most influential Christian conservatives, has publicly accused Republican leaders of betraying the social conservatives who helped elect them in 2004. He has also warned in private meetings with about a dozen of the top Republicans in Washington that he may turn critic this fall unless the party delivers on conservative goals. 

Dr. Dobson, whose daily radio broadcast has millions of listeners, has already signaled his willingness to criticize Republican leaders. In a recent interview with Fox News on the eve of a visit to the White House, he accused Republicans of "just ignoring those that put them in office."

Dr. Dobson cited the House's actions on two measures that passed over the objections of social conservatives: a hate-crime bill that extended protections to gay people, and increased support for embryonic stem cell research.

"There's just very, very little to show for what has happened," Dr. Dobson said, "and I think there's going to be some trouble down the road if they don't get on the ball."

Since then, the Republicans haven’t accomplished much in terms of opposing same-sex marriage, obscenity or abortion – but Dobson seems to have realized the symbiotic nature of his relationship with the GOP and has quietly abandoned his petulant threats

Syndicate content