Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« British forewarned of Equatorial Guinea coup | Main | Vermont Bishop takes flu seriously »

November 27, 2004

I try to use "jeebofascist" sparingly

Via Steve Gilliard:

Courts first to go in right-wing revolution

By George McEvoy
Palm Beach Post Columnist
Saturday, November 27, 2004

Every time the so-called Christian Right has tried to turn this country into a theocracy, those pesky federal courts have stymied things.

So now — according to the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State — the right-wingers have come up with a new scheme. All they plan to do is to strip the federal judges of their right to hear cases involving the separation of church and state.

Reportedly, such leaders as the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, flush with what they see as a successful right-wing revolution, believe they can make the federal courts virtually powerless.

Rep. Hostettler, addressing a special legislative briefing of the Christian Coalition last month in Washington, reportedly talked at length about a bill he plans to introduce. It would deny federal courts the right to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage.

"Congress controls the federal judiciary," Rep. Hostettler was quoted as saying. "If Congress wants to, it can refer all cases to the state courts. Congress can say the federal courts have limited power to enforce their decision."


Apparently, the Hoosier congressman has not heard of the balance of power among the three arms of our government. He was quoted as telling the Christian Coalition members:

"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."


Another congressman, Alabama Republican Robert Aderholdt, was quoted as advocating court stripping as a means to protect state-sponsored Ten Commandment displays, such as the one erected by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

And then there was Sheila Cole, executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of ultra-conservative House members. She said federal judges who refuse to listen to Congress might well be impeached.

Others in attendance at the session called for more direct action to render the federal courts powerless. During a question-and-answer period, a member reportedly said that in such cases as the Ten Commandments display, people should form a human barrier, if neccessary, to prevent removal.

Rep. Hostettler apparently liked that idea. In such a case, he allegedly said, federal marshals would have to be called out.

"If the president does that," he was quoted as saying, "who will have a say in the next presidential election?"

The Rev. Falwell spoke of what he called an evangelical awakening sweeping this nation, and boasted that the Religious Right now controls the Republican Party, according to Americans United.

Many of the legal scholars consulted by Americans United said the court-stripping scheme was of dubious legality. Michael Gerhardt, a professor at William & Mary Law School, testified before Congress twice recently, arguing that the plan violates the U.S. Constitution.

[...]

Take action: Oppose Court-Stripping Legislation (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83421ac7a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I try to use "jeebofascist" sparingly:

» Canary watch. from Long story; short pier
Remember galiel’s canaries? Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a one-click email thing you can send to your various elected representatives about four of them: the “Constitution Restoration Act,” the “Safeg... [Read More]

Comments

Technically, I don't think you said jeebofascist yet (although I prefer "mouth-breathing jeebofascist"). Meanwhile, did you see AmericaBlog's fun thought:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_11_01_americablog_archive.html#110108603893761630

Economically speaking, the jeebofascists are digging their own graves. If they succeed in turning the red states into boiling cauldrons of pseduo-christian intolerance they will ultimately drive away talent and capital. States that are dominiated by the cultural and religious fundies will experience serious downside economic consequences, IMHO.

Peter, your comment reminds me of a study I now can't find, but which noted the following: there is a direct relationship between the degree of success of urban renewal projects in the U.S., and the degree to which those communities embrace the gay community. My father-in-law is one of those academics who is brought in to talk to towns about how to make themselves over, and one of the keys is, bring in gays. And related to this (a tangent to a tangent...), I believe the Ohio governor went public before the election saying "uh, shouldn't we not be alienating folks who might otherwise want to come here and work?" My dad (in Michigan) was worried that their anti-gay thing was going to pass and Ohio's wouldn't, and Michigan would lose out.

I'd like to suggest that having a horizontal line between lines in the same post/comment is misleading. A horizontal line is a strong symbol of separation. If many lines of text are separated by some horizontal lines, the brain tends to use the lines to demarcate into segments. Dispatches from the Culture Wars also has this problem.

Interstingly, if you google "jeebofascist", this site comes up first.

I try to use the word "jeebofascist", sparingly, but mention it often.

I try not to lean to hard on the "red states will pay economic consequences for their bad politics" argument. It has a calvinist aire to it. Correct beliefs will be rewarded by material prosperity, incorrect beliefs will be likewise punished.

Arrgh! I got caught out on the use/mention distinction. (walk of shame)

Technically, if the term is mentioned often enough to give the google search results reported but used judiciously, everything hangs together, though maybe we should use Lindsay's conscience as our guide to any clues about her actual intent. ;-)

The more I read things like this, the more firmly I come to the conclusion that the future course of American politics really rests with the Dems. It's going to take a strong and principled opposition to reverse the trend towards one-party rule as outlined by people like David Neiwert in his psuedo-fascism posts.

I'm obviously in no position to criticize anyone, since my post has a superfluous comma and a bizzaro-world spelling of "air."

the calvinist "aire" thing made me laugh.

The comments to this entry are closed.