Democrats & Liberals Archives

Judicial Litmus Test of Right

We have been told over and over again that the Conservative Right has no litmus test for nominees to the Supreme Court. All they seek, say the Conservatives, is a judge who is a strict constructionist, one who interprets the law and does not make law from the bench. As the big brouhaha with Harriet Miers makes clear, by “strict constructionist” Conservatives mean someone who is against abortion. “Strict constructionist” is code for “anti-abortion.” This is the Conservative litmus test for judges.

Remember how all Republicans spoke with one voice about the confirmation of Roberts? Don't ask questions about his judicial philosophy. Don't go probing to find out how he would vote on this or that issue. Don't have a litmus test. He has a great mind. And he will interpret the law, not make it. The far Right had some doubts, but when they heard the code words "interpret the law" they joined in confirming Roberts. Not enthusiastically, because they were not positive about Roberts' future rulings.

Now, along comes Harriet Miers, with no judicial record. Bush tells the world that she will "interpret the law and not make it." This code encourages some theocratic Conservatives like James Dobson to favor her. But some of the things Miers has said in the past seem to contradict Bush's message. In speeches Miers gave in the early 1990s she supported

"The freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."

Holy mackerel! This is not what Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, thinks is meant by "interpreting the law" and "strict constructionist." She thinks that Miers' speeches

"Indicate a radical feminist worldview, a penchant for judicial activism, race and sex quotas, a liberal characterization of the abortion debate and government spending, and an inability to articulate her positions clearly. We do not think there is anything she could say at her hearing that would satisfy our concerns."

That statement and the vicious statements of prominent Republicans sealed the fate of Miers. She withdrew - more likely, she was told to withdraw - her nomination.

Now, Dobson knows better, and joins those denigrating Miers. He realizes now that she did not pass the Conservative Right's judicial litmus test.

For those of you who do not believe that "strict constructionist" and "interpreting the law" are synonyms for "anti-abortion," perhaps you could tell me why Justices Scalia and Thomas, the leading proponents of this code also are against abortion and for overturning Roe v. Wade. A review of the Constitution finds no place where abortion is mentioned.

Maybe you can explain why Bush insisted that Miers was an evangelical Christian. This is more than code. This is practically screaming that she would be against abortion.

Just wait and see how Bush announces his new nominee. He will tell us that she or he is a "strict constructionist" and would "interpret the law, not make it." This is the code that says the candidate passed the Conservative Right's judicial litmus test.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 27, 2005 5:52 PM
Comments
Comment #88416

And as soon as Bush said Miers is a Evangelical Christian youall turn on her.
Guess What? Bush has tricked all youall, Left and Right. Now he’ll appoint the person he REALLY wanted. And BOTH sides are STUCK voting for him/her.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 27, 2005 8:36 PM
Comment #88417

Ooo, Codespeak.

Ok, what do you say to all of those people, those ‘CLASSIC LIBERALS’ who have been forced to call themselves Libertarians after the Democratic Party turned ‘special interest/socialist’ in the 70s, who want to ensure that their property rights aren’t ripped from them any further or that the 9th and 10th amendments actually mean something…?

Are they just pawns in the scary conservative anti-abortion lobby?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 27, 2005 8:37 PM
Comment #88418

Abortion is a divisive issue. The right has a de-facto litmus test and so does the left for judges because of Roe v Wade. Do you think anybody who said that Roe should be overturned could get any liberal votes?

I care very little about the abortion issue. I take the mainstream position that it should be legal, but with some restrictions and that the people of the states should decide what those restrictions should be. Radicals on both the left and the right hate this formulation.

I didn’t care for Miers. She just was not among the best qualified people. I didn’t like the way the President personalized the choice. All you liberals know that I am right and you would have said the same things had the nomination moved forward. You cannot now to shocked, SHOCKED to learn that others agreed.

I don’t care much about the abortion issue, but I believe Roe should be overturned because it was based on a bad interpretation of the law. I prefer the laws be interpreted conservatively (with a small c) I want the President to nominate someone like that. AND I want that someone to be brilliant.

Posted by: Jack at October 27, 2005 8:43 PM
Comment #88423

Jack,
When did you start to sound so reasonable? I disagree with you, about 80%, but you were reasonable.

Ron,
On the other hand, wasn’t.

Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2005 9:38 PM
Comment #88434

Ron Brown:
“as soon as Bush said Miers is a Evangelical Christian”

As soon as he did, our president displayed either an extreme yet inexcusable ignorance, or a complete disrespect and disregard of our Constitution, which states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Indeed, the very moment he drew the public’s attention to Mier’s religious affiliation, we were made to realize that in his estimation her religion had been a qualification, therefore, we might actually consider this to be a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee came out with a report entitled ‘Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment’ where they described what high crimes and misdemeanors were and exactly how Congress already had, and might in the future, issue Articles of Impeachment. They placed these into three broad categories:

(1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

In this particular case, grounds for presidential impeachment (and I feel there are several others that could apply to him) could fall under either the first or second categories.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 27, 2005 11:35 PM
Comment #88435

Whoops. I really meant “could fall under the first or THIRD categories.”

Posted by: Adrienne at October 27, 2005 11:38 PM
Comment #88436

Adrienne:

I think you have a pretty week case because of the word “required”. Bush has never said that he “required” meiers to be of a certain faith, only that he appreciated that she was.

Personally, I think it is offensive to bring the isssue up. I can’t see the relavance. What it shows me is that she had extemely weak credentials. Bush was forced to defend someone whose resume’ was very very thin. If I were on the Senate Committee, that would tell me that this person probably doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court, even though she and I seem fairly close in beliefs. From what I could gather she seemed fairly moderate.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 27, 2005 11:47 PM
Comment #88438

Paul:

I thought this exchange was important to your topic.

Craig


KERRY: I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he’s tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not.

MODERATOR: Kerry claims that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Would you?

BUSH: What he’s asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I’ll have no litmus test.

KERRY: The president didn’t answer the question. I’ll answer it straight to America. I’m not going to appoint a judge to the Court who’s going to undo a constitutional right, whether it’s the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that’s given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right. I don’t intend to see it undone. Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 27, 2005 11:53 PM
Comment #88440

Craig:
“I think you have a pretty week case because of the word “required”. Bush has never said that he “required” meiers to be of a certain faith, only that he appreciated that she was.”

I think my case is pretty strong Craig, because I’m certain that religion has become a major requirement for a SC justice with the majority of those in the Republican Party. In fact, I think that’s why the president felt he had the freedom, and the need due to her lack of qualifications, to actually announce it.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2005 12:28 AM
Comment #88445

Adrienne,

Can you prove what Bush’s intentions were? Can you demonstrate that he refused to nominate anyone on the basis of their religion, or chose Meirs on the basis of hers?

Your strong case only demonstrates that Bush announced her religion to sway those attacking her, not that he used it to determine who to select.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2005 1:20 AM
Comment #88446

Paul,

You claim that these “code words” are part of a judicial litmus test, but yet though these code words were used with Meirs she didn’t pass the test. Despite not passing the test, she was nominated. Your argument doesn’t make much sense for there being any such litmus test.

Bush nominated her.
Many people criticized her.
Meirs withdrew her nomination.

Where’s the litmus test. If there was such a test GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, then she would never have been nominated. Now, whether or not those who choose to endorse her nomination have a litmus test… Well, yeah! There’s been that with all recent federal judicial nominations, but those tests have not been from the President, but from outside parties and Senators. There’s a much stronger case against the filibustering Senators than there is against the President.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2005 1:26 AM
Comment #88482

C’mon, now Stephanie. As soon as the wacko fundamentalists who make up the most powerful Republican constituency started questioning Miers commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, President Bush hurried to assure them she was a fundamentalist Christian who would “interpret the Constitution” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Bush was reassuring the Operation Rescue wackos and their ilk that Miers passed his litmus test. They didn’t believe him.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 28, 2005 12:02 PM
Comment #88511

Stephanie:

“Bush nominated her.
Many people criticized her.
Meirs withdrew her nomination.”

What happened is this: Bush nominated her. Bush told his followers that she passed the litmus test. His followers did not believe him and criticized her mercilessly. Bush told Miers she better withdraw her nomination.

In Bush’s eyes she passed the litmus test. In the eyes of the powerful extremist right she did not pass the litmus test.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 28, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #88563

AP & Paul,

You’re guessing. You’re assuming. You lack proof.

C’mon, “nudge, nudge, wink, wink?”

“What happened is this:”

“Bush told Miers she better withdraw her nomination.”

“In Bush’s eyes she passed the litmus test.”

You’ve not established there was any litmus test. You have not established what Bush did (or are you saying you both were really there inside his head?). This is called conjecture, and if you didn’t realize it, it’s a far cry from evidence.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #88627

Stephanie:
“Can you prove what Bush’s intentions were? Can you demonstrate that he refused to nominate anyone on the basis of their religion, or chose Meirs on the basis of hers?

Your strong case only demonstrates that Bush announced her religion to sway those attacking her, not that he used it to determine who to select.”

Yeah, yeah. Sure. Maybe we ought to file this one under Woody’s “Arguing Politics vs. Defending Reality” above.
But anyhoo, here goes:
Christian Conservatives Want Unambiguous Supreme Court Pick
Make of it what you will.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2005 8:14 PM
Comment #88656

Adrienne,

The thing you’re missing is that you don’t have to establish that the Religious Right wants a judge that fits their agenda. What you have to establish is that Bush is even trying to give them what they want. Bush has every reason and every right to do exactly what he says. Because of who he is he SHOULD pick a conservative judge who will abide by the Constitution. It is my HOPE that that is exactly what he’s going to do (after all, he’s soiled his legacy so much already, he ought to get SOMETHING right). You’ve not proven anything that even dims my hope.

Does the Religious Right want a judge who’s going to tow their line? Of course, but so does the Ultra-Liberal Left!!! Neither of which side actually follows the Constitution and neither of which side is actually going to get what they want from Bush.

Think of it this way, Bush has already promised so much to the Religious Right and not followed through, what makes you think he’ll risk what’s left of his legacy to follow through with this, especially when his polls are so dismally low?

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #88657

Sorry, that whole paragraph was not supposed to be in bold text. It was supposed to be just the “wants” and the “trying” in bold.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2005 10:34 PM
Comment #88665

Stephanie,

You said “Bush has already promised so much to the Religious Right and not followed through…”

Thanks for setting us straight. I forgot that packing the lower Federal courts with judges who are openly hostile to separation of church and state and favor taxpayer support of Christian religious observances, pushing taxpayer funded vouchers for religious schools, promoting creationism-in-disguise, and allowing theocrats to run amok at the Air Force Academy are all the work of Democrats working behind Bush’s back.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at October 28, 2005 11:06 PM
Comment #88672

Adrienne:

I think my case is pretty strong Craig, because I’m certain that religion has become a major requirement for a SC justice with the majority of those in the Republican Party. In fact, I think that’s why the president felt he had the freedom, and the need due to her lack of qualifications, to actually announce it.

I disagree with you on that one. Conservatives happen to go to church much more frequently that liberals. To say someone goes to church regulary,is a pretty good indicator that they are conservative. The largest exception I know of is the African American community. The Jewish community might be another but I haven’t seen statistics.

Religion doesn’t need to be a “requirement” as it is hard to find conservatives that are not religious.

Survey finds church attendance, party affiliation closely linked

01 Dec 2003

DES MOINES, Iowa — People who attend church regularly are twice as likely to vote Republican than those who don’t, according to a new survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Knight Ridder news service reported the survey found 63 percent of voters who frequently attend religious services tilt Republican while those who never attend church lean similarly toward Democrats, 62 percent.

This means that there is a 63% chance that it will appear you are right, even if you are not!!! Republicans go to church!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 29, 2005 12:01 AM
Comment #88676

You know, Adrienne, comparing this thread of the Ultra-Liberal Left to the Religious Right I do kind of feel like a moderate. Who’d a thunk it?

Robert Benjamin,

First, I’d hardly call it “packing the lower Federal courts with judges” considering that last I heard most of those seats were still vacant due to the (anti-)Democratic filibusters, but maybe that changed and nobody made enough noise for me to notice. But, that’s besides the point really. Your post just makes it abundantly clear to me that you have no understanding of the Religious Right.

If you honestly believe your litany of Bush’s numerous transgressions mollifies the Religious Right at all, you are sadly mistaken. You see, the Religious Right expected a whole lot more. Sure, they play these up as major victories, but considering their agenda they really don’t make much of a dent. They make a lot of noise about it to keep up their enthusiasm, just like the leaders of the Ultra-Liberal Left do when they make a small bit of headway. It’s the rally-mentality you’re seeing there, nothing more and nothing less.

The Religious Right won’t stop until the Bible is back in the public schools. They won’t stop until the humanist indoctrination is out of the public schools. They won’t stop until the “filth” is off the airwaves and public television broadcasting. They won’t stop until pornography is actually illegal and those laws are enforced stringently. You see, as per what they thought Bush promised them, abortion is supposed to be illegal now and marriage is supposed to be defined as between a man and a woman. Now, granted, Bush made a token effort, but he really didn’t try that hard. It was all show and he knew it, unfortunately the Religious Right didn’t take the hint.

In the end, the truly scary thing is that the Religious Right and the Ultra-Liberal Left really do have a whole lot in common. I mean, they’re both into indoctrination, just diametrically opposed indoctrination. The Religious Right wants to exclusively teach their morals and values in the public square; the Ultra-Liberal Left wants to exclusively teach their different morals and values in the public square. They’re both just trying to shout each other down about what’s right and what’s not. And basically, if you ask me, in the end they’re both wrong.

And none of this proves Bush has a litmus test.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 29, 2005 12:22 AM
Comment #88678

Craig,

The figure is probably higher than 63%, because the people we’re talking about aren’t just Republican voters, but actual politicians (and in this day and age judges seem just as much politicians as the rest of them, despite how wrong that is) who probably attend church at even higher percentages because it “looks good.”

Posted by: Stephanie at October 29, 2005 12:25 AM
Comment #88714

Stephanie,

From your response (and your other postings), I have had a hard time trying to figure you out. You are obviously not in sympathy with the aims of the Religious Right, but you do seem to share one belief in common with them - the idea that there is an “Ultra-Liberal Left” with anything like the power and influence that the Religious Right has managed to coalesce over the past half century.

While there are some such ideologues on the Left, they have little influence over either legislation or judicial appointments, and are generally regarded as either out of touch with, or hostile to liberal values.

It is no accident that the founders of the neoconservative movement are former left-wing ideologues. Stalin was very perceptive when he said he could turn former Nazis into Communists much easier than he could do so with Socialists.

The idea of a powerful “Ultra-Liberal Left” with totalitarian intentions has long been a favorite fantasy of the Right, Religious and otherwise. Just as the Nazis invented an all-powerful, ruthless, scheming Jew to justify their own mirror image behavior, ideologues with totalitarian dreams need such straw dogs to keep their followers hopped-up.

You seem like someone whose intentions are anything but these. Why then do you buy into the propaganda of those who DO have such intentions?

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at October 29, 2005 9:39 AM
Comment #88773

Robert Benjamin,

“I have had a hard time trying to figure you out.”

Good! I like it that way. :-)

Seriously now, I’ve found my spectrum of positions rather unique because I’m open to a variety of influences and my own history defies stereotyping. This is how I’ve come to see both sides of many arguments and can usually argue either side of an argument effectively, but I generally try not to do that here on WatchBlog and try to stick to the positions I actually hold, which generally don’t fit either liberal or conservative stereotype when viewed from the total spectrum of issues at hand.

“You are obviously not in sympathy with the aims of the Religious Right…”

That’s where you’re wrong. I am in sympathy with their positions, I just don’t agree with them. There’s a difference. I understand why they’re trying to do what they do, and I agree to a certain extent with the why, but I don’t agree with how they’re going about it or the end results they seek.

In the end, I realize you cannot legislate morality. That is what the Religious Right tries to do, but it cannot work. To see evidence of that all you have to do is look back to our own (and Europe’s history). During the Victorian era morality was “legislated” both through legal means and cultural means, and yet the secret life of those in the Victorian era in some instances would blow away the open “filth” of our own time. It’s a matter of perspective.

Then, there’s the other angle. Not only do I disagree with their approach, but also their end result. I try my best not to hold prejudice against any individuals on the basis of the stereotype they seem to fit. I judge people by their own choices and their own actions and determine how I interact with them on that basis. Which is why I can strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle as promoted by the Liberal Left and still retain my friendships with homosexual individuals. In my experience, the individual is not the group and vice versa.

“While there are some such ideologues on the Left, they have little influence over either legislation…”

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU would be my first examples to the contrary. Both have a lot of influence over legislation. Well, ACLU tends to do it through the courts and not Congress (thus the whole judicial activism thing), but it amounts to the same thing.

GSA Network and NAMBLA are examples of organizations that try to influence our government with less (but still some) success. These, and many others, have some influence, but want a whole lot more. There’s a whole site dedicated to advocating special rights for homosexuals.

These organizations do NOT represent mainstream America or traditional liberalism. Some Dems on WatchBlog have even said they’ve “hi-jacked” the Democratic party. These are the types I refer to as Ultra-Liberal Left and they are just as active and as powerful in their own time (while Clinton was in office and currently in states control by Democrats, including my own) as the Christian Coalition and their fellows are right now. With PP and ACLU probably topping all of them, because they unfortunately get PAID by the government to do what they do.

These aren’t organizations I can or will ignore. And these organizations cause me to distance myself strongly from the Democratic Party, because the Democratic Party refuses to distance themselves from them.

“…as the Nazis invented an all-powerful, ruthless, scheming Jew…”

I do not address any comments comparing any members of our country to the Nazis any longer. That’s a favorite used by both sides and it’s an unfair extreme comparison when used by either. I refuse to rise to such baiting tactics.

“You seem like someone whose intentions are anything but these.”

I’ll tell you a little about what my intentions are: I intend to work to keep the integrity of the traditional family intact. I believe this must be done via person-to-person contacts and that legislating it is counter-productive. I intend to work to end the racial and other stereotypical prejudice that’s still a part of our culture. I believe this must be done via person-to-person contacts and that legislating it is counter-productive. I intend to work to eliminate convenience abortions, which is the most widely used form of legal murder in this country. I intend to work to safe-guard our culture from the poisonous effects of pornography, which, like abortions, needs to be addressed both from legislative and person-to-person approachs because of the nature of the matter. I intend to work toward improving our public schools on many fronts, including improving the basic education (I mean, EVERY graduating high school student should know how to balance a check, where our country is on a globe and all sorts of other basic skills and information), improving cultural awareness (it is my opinion that, yes, the Bible should be in the schools, but should only be there when alongside the Koran, the Gita and other main religious texts and only in the context of cultural awareness and unity, in that sense that “yeah, we all believe different things, but look at ALL THE MANY THINGS we have in common), and letting science classes be science classes without teaching science as religion or religion as science (basically, get the ID AND humanism out of our science classes and teach theories as theories, not philosophies).

I hope with this in-depth explanation of my psyche you’ll better understand why I don’t buy into the Ulra-Liberal Left OR the Religious Right propaganda.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 29, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #88810

Stephanie,

Whew! I think I now understand your psyche better than you may have intended. But, just in case….

Can you tell me which legislation in the last two decades was influenced by the ACLU or Planned Parenthood (other than by opposition to those two groups’ positions)? Also, do you really consider the Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), an organization that tries to stop gay bashing in high schools, to be in the same company as NAMBLA, a group of pedophiles that advocates for pedophilia? Do you also really think that the latter has influence over the Democratic Party, and based on what credible evidence?

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at October 29, 2005 6:51 PM
Comment #88867

Robert Benjamin,

“Whew! I think I now understand your psyche better than you may have intended.”

Feel free to delineate the conclusions you’ve drawn concerning my psyche and I’ll correct you where you’re wrong. I feel no shame over my positions and would love to debate them with you where ever you happen to disagree. Though, it would probably not be practical to cover it all on this particular thread.

“Can you tell me which legislation in the last two decades was influenced by the ACLU or Planned Parenthood (other than by opposition to those two groups’ positions)?”

You’re kidding, right? No? Well, okay, sure! This should be easy, if you’re actually willing to look at the links I find.

First, we’ll start with the ACLU. Right here, on ACLU’s own website, they cover the legislation they are currently trying to affect. Now granted, they are more active in countering legislation through the Supreme Court, but I suspect that’s because they can’t garner a whole lot of support for their agenda within the legislatures, who are elected by the people. However, the ACLU is very proud of it’s legislative successes.

Now, onto Planned Parenthood. Here’s a good example of PP supported legislation in Illinois. Here’s one for Wisconsin. Here’s a good one, because it ties PP, Democrats and legislation together!

But enough that. If you’re not convinced we can back-track later, but…

“Also, do you really consider the Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), an organization that tries to stop gay bashing in high schools, to be in the same company as NAMBLA, a group of pedophiles that advocates for pedophilia?”

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that they both advocate for special treatment. However, I completely understand why associating them together would bother you.

First, I’ll clarify that I agree that homosexual individuals should not be verbally or physically abused. Period. It shouldn’t happen. But neither should black kids be abused, or fat kids, or geeky kids, or…well, anyone. But, why should homosexuals being abused get some sort of special protection in these circumstances? They shouldn’t. Abusers should be punished, but abusers who abuse homosexuals shouldn’t be punished any more harshly than abusers who abuse anyone else. That the GSA and Democrats advocate this very thing bothers the heck out of me.

“Do you also really think that the latter has influence over the Democratic Party, and based on what credible evidence?”

Okay, I’ll concede that one. I did the search and found nothing. NAMBLA seems neither very active nor very well accepted by anyone. Though, for some it was merely for the sake of survival not for because they disagreed with NAMBLA’s purpose as exhibited by this quote from wikipedia:

Radicals like Pat Califia [22] argue that politics played an important role in the gay community’s rejection of NAMBLA. Califia says that although the gay rights mainstream never committed itself to NAMBLA or its platform, neither did it actively ostracise NAMBLA until opponents of gay rights used the group to link gay rights with child abuse and “recruitment.” As evidence, subscribers to this theory point to statements made by prominent gay activists which contain political assessments of NAMBLA’s impact on gay rights. One such statement was made by gay rights lobbyist Steve Endean. Endean, who opposed NAMBLA, said: “What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it [the man/boy love issue] to gay rights, gay rights will never happen.” Gay author and activist Edmund White made a similar statement in his book States of Desire: “That’s the politics of self-indulgence. Our movement cannot survive the man-boy issue. It’s not a question of who’s right, it’s a matter of political naivete.”
Posted by: Stephanie at October 29, 2005 10:49 PM
Comment #88927

Arguably, the Evangelical Christians are among the staunchest supporters of President Bush. Some would say that the support is so strong and well received as to have some influence on Presidential actions and/or decisions. I will leave that determination to, and with, the only principals involved - The Evangelicals, President Bush and, the GOD that they serve.

The fact remains that the Evangelical Christian movement has the fastest growing membership in the country. Once President Bush leaves office, their support will be up for grabs.

According to recent statements by high ranking leaders within the Evangelical Christian movement, which political party they support is far less significant than getting their ideas and beliefs acted upon. Most of these of course are moral/ethical issues.

IMO treading lightly on criticisms of this group would go a long way to winning their support in coming elections.

Posted by: steve smith at October 30, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #88948

steve smith,

“IMO treading lightly on criticisms of this group would go a long way to winning their support in coming elections.”

Some political parties, Democrats included, would have to do a lot of back-peddling to garner the support of this group of citizens. The views of the Evangelical Christians are just too different from some of the other main ideological contenders for sway within the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 12:35 PM
Comment #88949

So, why did this one post, but the last one didn’t?

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #88951

Robert Benjamin,

Basically, I wrote a long post to you that included several links. I found no evidence that actually connected NAMBLA to the Democrats, it seems everyone (at least political person) is wise enough (disgusted enough with their message) not to touch them with a ten-foot pole.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 12:45 PM
Comment #88953

Robert Benjamin,

Now that I know it wasn’t NAMBLA that prevented my other post from being allowed. I’m going to try some of the links I found before.

Here’s a current description of the ACLU’s legislation activity straight from their own website. And here’s a description of some of their recent successful attempts to affect legislation, again from their own website.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #88956

Robert Benjamin,

Now, for Planned Parenthood. I found their main site to be difficult to navigate, but there are plenty of state sites that have what I need.

Here’s their activity in Wisconsin, which is my home state.

Here’s one from Illinois.

Well, here’s one from the main PP site after all, I hadn’t found that one last time.

Then, there’s the biggie, California, where they advocate that teens should be able to decide to abort without parental awareness or consent as the norm. This topic was also covered in “Planned Parenthood vs. Children” by OttO in August, you can find it in the archives if you want to read the post or the comments made about the matter.

I hope this convinces you that both the ACLU and PP are actively seeking (and successsfully) to affect the legislation in this country. They are not the only Ultra-Liberal Left organizations that do so.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 1:15 PM
Post a comment