Part of the Theocracy Brigade's agenda is to make the phrase 'religious right' redundant in the minds of most Americans. If you are religious, then you must be conservative, at least moderately so. That's what they want to drum into the minds of Americans until it becomes an unquestioned assumption. Never mind that many of the great liberal social reformers in American history have been motivated precisely because of their faith, from the abolitionists to Cesar Chavez to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and his associates in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
The Theocracy Brigade usually advances their agenda in a very stealthful way. That's how they've become so powerful. They worked from the grass roots up and flew under the political radar for a long time until they were already entrenched. They usually seize upon issues which are relatively unimportant in practical terms but hugely symbolic. Like whether society will collapse if the Ten Commandments aren't posted in every school bathroom or court hallway. Or whether we [however that's defined] should acknoweldge [however that's defined] America as a Christian nation [however that's defined].
With control of the presidency and the Congress and control of the judiciary their next, not-too-distant goal, they are so drunk with power that perhaps are losing a bit of the subtle touch that got them so much.
Democrats in the Senate have used the filibuster to block several of President Bush's more extreme judicial nominees. Once approved, judges serve for life unless they retire or are impeached and removed for misconduct. So prudence doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.
Republicans are screaming bloody murder so you'd think this tactic were widespread and that the president couldn't get any of his men approved. It turns out Democrats have only blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees, while nearly 200 have been approved by the Senate.
You'd think this obstructionism is new but it's not. During Bill Clinton's second term, Republicans vigorously blocked many of his judicial nominees and Democrats complained about obstructionism.
[T]he Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing.
And that was in a single year. Democrats have only blocked ten in over four years.
Having pioneered this tactic in the late 90s, Republicans are shocked (SHOCKED) that Democrats are now doing this, if much more sparingly.
Republican obstruction of Clinton's judicial appointments was so bad that it caused a serious shortage of judges. It was so severe that it prompted an extraordinary intervention by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who usually avoids the spotlight.
In late 1997, he said that the nation's ``quality of justice'' may be threatened by the [GOP controlled] Senate's delay in acting on scores of President Clinton's judicial nominees. In his year-end report, the nation's top-ranking judge pointed a finger of blame at the Senate for ``serious delays in the appointment process.''
I even had one conservative critic brazenly tell me that although Republicans have controlled the presidency for 16 of the last 24 years, they never really cared much about judges until the last couple of years. I wonder what he'd make of Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese who once said that the appointment of judges would "institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can't be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections."
So the Republican solution to this problem: end the 200+ year old filibuster which was designed precisely to be a check on mob rule and one party domination of the entire government structure. Of course, filibusters have been used in the past for less noble purposes like blocking civil rights legislation in the 60s. It's a brake on mob rule. It's also a break on democracy. You take the good with the bad.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to scrap the filibuster to ram through the handful of judicial nominees that Democrats have blocked. But he did so by using pathetic exploitation of religion to advance his party's agenda. Frist's broadside was shocking only in its overtness.
In a recorded speech that will air this weekend, he is expected to say that the Democrats' blocking of a handful of extreme judges constitutes an attack on 'people of faith.'
The title of the event during which Frist's speech will air, "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith."
The head of the organization sponsoring Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith said that "activist courts" are conspiring "to rob us of our Christian heritage" and urges "values voters" to support Frist while a brochure originating from his church says the filibuster "was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."
In fairness, if Frist does not saying anything of this nature, I will publish a retraction. But what I mentioned above leaves very little room for surprise.
Conservative Sen. Trent Lott (Frist's predecessor), surprisingly enough, offered a more reasonable explanation of Democratic actions. "People of faith were abused, but they weren't abused perhaps because of their faith." But because of their politics.
While one may disagree with the characterization of asking tough questions as 'abuse,' it's certainly a more fair analysis that Frist's and his allies.
The Theocracy Brigade thinks religious people can only be conservative. And that Christians (and perhaps conservative Jews, an unlikely ally) are the only true people of faith. It's a shameful way to conduct politics, but these people have repeatedly proven that they have no shame.
But other people of faith aren't taking this disgrace lying down. Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, released a letter. It said that Frist and those like him. "appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics..... thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition of democracy that is scary" [emphasis mine]
He wrote to Frist: "Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to religious faith can be determined by that person's support or opposition to a political initiative called "the nuclear option" is derogatory of religion and an insult to democracy....Though I personally disagree with you, ... I never would pass judgment on the integrity of your religious faith because of your commitment to that political strategy."
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment