PhotoDude.com

Thu. Apr 07, 2005

Congressional Blindness and Blasphemy

It’s become clear since January that this Republican controlled Congress is on such a power trip they’ve stopped putting much effort into the pretense they serve “We, The People,” and the polls reflect it. Now, it appears they’d like to codify it into the law, via S.520:

“The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 – Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Now, I found this via Digsby, and this “bill” was put in the hopper prior to the our National Schiavo Trauma, so I’m not sure of its current status or realistic viability. One would hope such a bill might be reconsidered after the blowback from that, but as we’ll see below, rational thought and bowing to public will are not the strong suit of anyone in DC these days.

However, what I get from the proposed bill is that any judge who does not agree with the base assumption of “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government” ... “shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed.” That sounds like presumed guilt due to a disagreement over specific religious beliefs. Dictated by law.

While believers can surely agree on God as the source of all things great and small … like Congresspeople … the fact is that those Congresspeople did not take a solemn oath to uphold and defend the King James Bible. Or the Torah, in the case of Jewish Congresspeople (oh, my, that’s two religions). They swore to defend a document that clearly places its authority and power in a more Earthly place … “We, The People.”

Congress wants to legislate that “God” is “the sovereign source of law,” yet the Constitution’s very first paragraph says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice...

Congress wants to legislate that “God” is “the sovereign source of … liberty,” yet the Constitution’s very first paragraph says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Congress wants to legislate that “God” is “the sovereign source of … government,” yet the Constitution’s very first paragraph says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..”

Our Founding Fathers made it abundantly clear that the source of all governmental power was the People. Presidents, Congresspeople, and yes, judges too. All three branches derive their power and authority from one place. The People.

I know they get inundated with reading material, but it’s in the damn first paragraph!

Furthermore, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” yet it appears to me that they are doing just that when they insist a judge must agree with “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, or simple agnosticism are not to be allowed for judges … by an attempted Congressional law.

This blatantly unconstitutional bill is sponsored by Sen. Richard C. Shelby [AL], Sen, Sam Brownback [KS], Sen. Richard Burr [NC], Sen. Larry E. Craig[ID], and Sen. Trent Lott [MS]. All Republicans.

After the Republican victories last November, a lot of people, including Republicans I know and love, said “now, let’s see what they do with it,” like the proverbial car-chasing dog who finally catches one. And what they appear to be doing with it is trying to rejigger the Constitutional basis for their authority, as well as that of the other two branches.

I’ve always considered myself a fairly good barometer (it was one of the reasons I was successful as a radio programmer), perhaps because I’m generally a pretty moderate guy. You know, the kind that each party slags most of the time and courts only during the four weeks before the elections. And I gotta tell you, my barometer says the Republican Party has jumped the shark, drunk on a bottle of something they’ve never had before, and apparently can’t handle. At all.

It’s like going to a party where the host is so drunk all they do is insult all the guests and pick fights with them. Soon, people begin to leave, and talk about the sad behavior on the drive home. The American people are amazingly forgiving of a lot of things. But “drunk with power”? They’ll leave you hung over in the gutter.

Need another example of Congressional Chivas Chugging?

Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.

“I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.”

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

Washington Post: “Senator Links Violence To ‘Political’ Decisions”

When people pointed out, um, Brian Nichols didn’t kill four people busting out of an Atlanta courthouse because he was violently angry over activist judges forcing their morality on society, then Senator Backpedal Cornyn revised and extended his remarks: “I’m not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have captured the nation’s attention in recent years. My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well.”

Then that’s what the Senator should have said, as he knows how this game is played. Knows it quite well. But he implied something wholly different, perhaps egged on by comments of a similar tone from fellow game-player Rep. Tom DeLay: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”

While the Senator may now claim he was taken out of context, it was the kind of loose talk (as in, loosely associated with fact) that is being used as a partisan weapon, by him, DeLay, and others. But those sound bytes can bite back.

By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are “trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans” on moral values.

By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren’t trying to interfere on moral issues.

Americans by 53%-34% say they disapprove of Bush’s handling of the Schiavo case. Congress’ rating on Schiavo is worse: 76% disapprove, 20% approve.

By more than 2-to-1, 39%-18%, Americans say the “religious right” has too much influence in the Bush administration.

USA Today: “GOP’s moral agenda doubted”

Yes, the public already feels by a 2 to 1 margin that the “religious right” has too much influence, so, let’s propose a bill that makes judges hew our religious line!

It’s like watching someone commit slow suicide. Except it isn’t all that slow.

Check the chart on the upper right of this page. If you were the CEO of a company with that three year trend line, you’d be toast. In 2002, the average approval rating for the President, Republican leaders in Congress, and Democratic leaders in Congress was 61 (Bush-78, Rep.-56, Dem.-49). Three years later, their collective average approval rating is 40.3 (Bush-45, Rep.-39, Dem.-37).

A 20 point drop, from majority approval to majority disapproval, in a mere three years. And it’s top to bottom, across the board.

We, The People, are fed up with them all. And they don’t really seem to notice or care. This 109th Congress, in particular, just keeps spitting in our face.

Later: As Jeff Jarvis says, “So butt out, bozos. Build roads. Fight wars. Print money. But stay out of our lives. Got the message?”