Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund State Judiciary

If one listens to the Republican Party and its Christofacist/Tea Party base, the constant blather is how they want to remain true to the Founding Fathers' constitutional plan while liberals would destroy the system.  Nothing could be further from the truth and it is the conservatives who want to destroy the system as they seek to implement their greed, fear and hate based agenda that would make a toxic form of Christianity the de facto, if not official, state religion.  Nowhere is this disingenuous batshitery and push toward anarchy worse than in Kansas where Sam Brownback - a man who I increasingly view as mentally ill - and the Republican controlled legislature are now attacking the state judiciary.  A piece in Slate looks at the troubling developments.  Here are highlights:

On Thursday, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that threatens the entire state's judiciary with destruction if it rules against a law he favors. Brownback has spent much of his tenure attempting to curb the state supreme court and consolidate power in the executive branch. Thursday's startling maneuver suggests the deeply conservative governor has no compunction about simply obliterating separation of powers when another branch of government gets in his way.

The Kansas trouble started in 2014, when the state supreme court ruled that the disparity between school funding in rich and poor districts violated the state constitution. The justices ordered the legislature to fix the problem. Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets. (Instead, district court judges—who are often quite conservative—were allowed to elect their own chief judge.)

Arriving shortly after the school funding ruling, this law was widely seen as a retaliation against the court—and a warning. In their first ruling, the justices stopped short of declaring that the school system as a whole was constitutionally underfunded. But the court acknowledged that it would one day answer that question. And if the justices mandate more school funding, the legislature will have to raise taxes, a step few legislators are eager to take.

Just in case the court didn't get the message, Brownback and the legislature have also threatened the justices with blatantly political reforms, like subjecting them to recall elections, splitting the court in two, lowering the retirement age, and introducing partisan elections. (Currently, a nominating commission creates a pool of candidates, and the governor selects from that bunch.)

Now the court has an opportunity to strike down the administrative law, which probably violates the state constitution. And that's where Brownback's insane new law comes in. The law declares that if the supreme court strikes down the administrative law, the entire state judiciary will lose its funding. Brownback and the legislature are essentially bullying the judiciary: Uphold our law or cease to exist. 

This scheme is rather bonkers. It's also par for the course for Kansas Republicans, who turned their state into a failed Tea Party experiment and are now terrified of paying the price. The state supreme court is simply pushing the legislature and the governor to uphold their basic constitutional duties. In response, the legislature and the governor are trying to destroy the court. That's not democracy.

As I continue to state, the Christofascists/Tea Party are a clear and present danger to constitutional government.  They are a cancer infecting America.

Alabama Chief Justice Slams Gay Marriage, Says First Amendment Only Protects Christians

As noted before, I lived in Alabama from 1977 through 1981 and the Alabama of today is far more insane that the one I experienced over three decades ago.  What accounts for the change?  The same thing that has led the Republican Party into crazy land territory:  the rise of the Christofascists who were allowed to hijack the GOP and drive sane people from the party.  Having once met George Wallace while he was governor, Wallace was almost a liberal/moderate compared to what passes as "normal" in the Alabama GOP.  Case in point?  Look no farther than Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore who, given Alabama's elected judiciary, has recaptured the position he was forced from not that many years ago.  Moore's latest batshitery is to claim that First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects Christians.  The man belongs in an insane asylum, not Alabama's highest Court.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at Moore's shocking claims (he also slams gays and gay marriage).  Here are excerpts:

The Chief Justice of the Alabama state Supreme Court traveled to Mississippi to deliver a speech in front of the Pastors for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by a “pro-life” organization known for getting the Magnolia State’s abortion clinics shut down. Judge Roy Moore told the very receptive group that the First Amendment only protects Christians, and expressed his offense that same-sex military couples are now getting married at U.S. military bases.

The Chief Justice went on with his religious attacks, claiming that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to Christians. “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures on which this nation was founded,” Moore proclaimed.

Moore infamously lost his position as Chief Justice in 2003 after refusing a federal judge’s order to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. A decade later, he was re-installed after running for and winning re-election. In 2012, while running his campaign, Moore went out attacking gay people, claiming same-sex marriage will be “the ultimate destruction of our country.”

Moore also traveled recently to Washington state, fueling rumors that he might again be laying groundwork for a presidential campaign.

Not to sound mean spirited, but I increasingly think that far right Christians - and certainly Judge Moore - suffer from a form of mental illness given their hysterical need not to have anyone or any thing challenge their ignorace embracing religious beliefs.  These folks pose a clear and present danger to constitutional government in America.  

Roll Call Vote on Tracy Thorne-Begland Judgeship

UPDATED 5-16-12:  My Google search agent shows that this story is going viral around the USA and overseas.  I hope Bob Marshall and his fellow theocrats are happy that they've made Virginia a worldwide laughingstock. 

I noted earlier today how the Virginia House of Delegate rejected Tracy Thorne-Begland's nomination for a General District Court judgeship based solely on his sexual orientation and refusal to be a self-loathing closet case.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has a role call vote on trashing Thorne-Begland.   Several things are noteworthy: (1) of the "yes" votes, all were by Democrats except for seven Republicans; (2) all of the "No" votes were Republican, (3) all of abstentions were by Republicans - who apparently sought to avoid - documenting their bigotry; (4) seven of the 26 "not-voting" were cowardly Democrats, while the rest were Republicans embarrassed by their party's blatant anti-gay bigotry who were afraid to anger the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.   Obviously, had the cowards of both parties, Thorne-Begland would have been confirmed.   Here's the results from the Times-Dispatch:

Here is the roll call vote in the House of Delegates early Tuesday on Tracy Thorne-Begland, Richmond's chief deputy commonwealth's attorney, who was rejected for a judgeship in general district court. Thorne-Begland received 33 yea votes and 31 delegates voted against him. He needed a majority of the chamber -- 51 votes, to be elected.

Yeas (33)
 
David B. Albo, R-Fairfax
Kenneth C. Alexander, D-Norfolk
Mamye E. BaCote, D-Newport News
David L. Bulova, D-Fairfax
Betsy B. Carr, D-Richmond
Barbara J. Comstock, R-Fairfax
Rosalyn R. Dance, D-Petersburg
Peter F. Farrell, R-Henrico
Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax
Charniele L. Herring, D-Alexandria
Patrick A. Hope, D-Arlington
Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk
Matthew James, D-Portsmouth
Mark L. Keam, D-Fairfax
Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott
L. Kaye Kory, D-Fairfax
James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr., D-Accomack
Alfonso H. Lopez, D-Arlington
G. Manoli Loupassi, R-Richmond
Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond
Delores L. McQuinn, D-Richmond
Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico
Thomas Davis Rust, R-Fairfax
James M. Scott, D-Fairfax
Mark D. Sickles, D-Fairfax
Lionell Spruill Sr., D-Chesapeake
Scott A. Surovell, D-Fairfax
Luke Torian, D-Prince William
David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville
Jeion A. Ward, D-Hampton
Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax
Joseph A. Yost, R-Montgomery

Nays (31)

Richard L. Anderson, R-Prince William
Richard P. "Dickie" Bell, R-Staunton
Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle
Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell
Benjamin L. Cline, R-Rockbridge
Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania
John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake
John A. Cox, R-Hanover
L. Mark Dudenhefer, R-Stafford
James E. Edmunds II, R-Halifax
C. Matthew Fariss, R-Campbell
T. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg
Thomas A. "Tag" Greason, R-Loudoun
Gordon C. Helsel Jr., R-Poquoson
M. Keith Hodges, R-Middlesex
Timothy D. Hugo, R-Fairfax
Salvatore R. Iaquinto, R-Virginia Beach
Barry D. Knight, R-Virginia Beach
L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William
Daniel W. Marshall III, R-Danville
Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William
Jimmie Massie, R-Henrico
Donald W. Merricks, R-Pittsylvania
James W. "Will" Morefield, R-Tazewell
Brenda L. Pogge, R-James City
Charles D. Poindexter, R-Franklin County
David I. Ramadan, R-Loudoun
Roxann L. Robinson, R-Chesterfield
Ron Villanueva, R-Virginia Beach
Michael B. Watson, R-Williamsburg
Tony O. Wilt, R-Rockingham

Abstensions (10)

M. Kirkland Cox, R-Colonial Heights
Anne B. Crockett-Stark, R-Wythe
Riley E. Ingram, R-Hopewell
R. Steven Landes, R-Augusta
Israel D. O'Quinn, R-Bristol
Lacey E. Putney, I-Bedford
Larry N. Rush, R-Montgomery
Edward T. Scott, R-Madison
Beverly J. Sherwood, R-Frederick
Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach

Not voting (26)

Robert H. Brink, D-Arlington
David L. Englin, D-Alexandria
C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah
Gregory D. Habeeb, R-Salem
Christopher T. Head, R-Roanoke
William J. Howell, R-Stafford
Johnny S. Joannou, D-Portsmouth
Joseph P. Johnson Jr., D-Washington County
S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk
Joe T. May, R-Loudoun
Jackson H. Miller, R-Manassas
J. Randall "Randy" Minchew, R-Leesburg
Richard L. Morris, R-Isle of Wight
John M. O'Bannon III, R-Henrico
Robert D. Orrock Sr., R-Caroline
Christopher K. Peace, R-Hanover
Kenneth R. Plum, D-Fairfax
Harry R. Purkey, R-Virginia Beach
Margaret B. Ransone, R-Westmoreland
Robert Tata, R-Virginia Beach
Roslyn C. Tyler, D-Sussex
Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke
R. Lee Ware Jr., R-Powhatan
Michael J. Webert, R-Fauquier
Thomas C. Wright Jr., R-Lunenberg
David E. Yancey, R-Newport News

Here is the statement released by Senator Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) on the Virginia General Assembly's failure to appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland to the Richmond District Court:

"Tracy Thorne-Begland is a highly qualified and exceptionally competent prosecutor, who also served our country with honor as a Navy pilot. The blatant prejudice that Republicans displayed last night should have no place in our government. The GOP took Virginia back to the bigotry and mean-spirited prejudice of the 1960s. I thought we had made more progress toward a just society than this.

"The only criteria legislators should apply when selecting judges are that person's ability to fairly and impartially weigh the law. Mr. Thorne-Begland's qualifications for appointment to the bench were unimpeachable, but Republicans cynically voted against his appointment just because he was gay," said Senator McEachin.

Once again, I find myself embarrassed to be a resident of Virginia.  I suspect this latest case of religious based hate and bigotry is being watched around the world and the Virginia GOP just cased Virginia to be stricken from the list of possible relocation sites by many corporations and businesses

GOP Controlled Virginia House of Delegates Sinks Gay Judicial Nominee

Send yet another message to the entire world that Virginia is the home of rank bigotry and discrimination  where LGBT citizens are treated like garbage the GOP controlled Virginia House of Delegates killed the nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland to a General District Court judgeship.  So much for the United States Constitution's prohibition of religious tests for public positions.  In Virginia, it one doesn't meet the religious criteria of the Christofascists in the Virginia GOP, one has no rights.  It's disgusting and why I tell would be newcomers to Virginia to think twice.  Why move to a state where gays are subject to open contempt and discrimination as a matter of state policy.  Note that the Virginia GOP did its dirty work in the wee hours of the morning this morning.  Note too the cowardice of a number of Democrats - something I'll remember the next time I receive a call for money.  Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

The House of Delegates, voting in Tuesday's early morning hours, blocked an openly gay Richmond prosecutor from appointment to a General District Court judgeship in the city.

Tracy Thorne-Begland received 33 yes votes, 31 no votes - all from Republicans - and 10 abstentions in his bid to become what gay-rights advocates said would have been Virginia's first openly gay jurist. Twenty-six House members, including seven Democrats, did not vote.  A minimum of 51 votes in the 100-member House is required for election.

Thorne-Begland, a former Navy pilot who was honorably discharged after publicly disclosing his sexual orientation, was one of only two candidates among scores of judicial nominees not to be approved during a `round-the-clock marathon that lingered from 1 p.m. Monday to 2 a.m. Tuesday.

 

Among Thorne-Begland's fiercest critics was Del. Robert G. Marshall, an outspokenly anti-gay Republican from Prince William who is among four candidates seeking the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in next month's primary.

Marshall said he opposed Thorne-Begland on grounds that he denied his true sexual orientation in a statement those entering the armed forces at the time were forced to sign in the era before President Bill Clinton instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military.

 Later, Marshall said he also considered Thorne-Begland unfit for the bench because being openly gay clashes with his duty to uphold the Virginia Constitution, which includes an amendment that defines marriage solely as a monogamous union between a man and a woman.

 

Thorne-Begland's chief House defender was also a Republican. Del. Manoli Loupassi, a Richmond lawyer, has known and practiced for years in courtrooms with Thorne-Begland, a successful deputy commonwealth's attorney in charge of handling the capital city's heavy caseloads of homicides, assaults and other violent crimes.

"He's been doing his job and he's been doing it well. He's been protecting us from criminals," Loupassi said. "I have known this man for a very long time and I believe that he absolutely will carry out the duties of his office in a dignified way and a correct way."

Virginia's first openly gay legislator, Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, said he was "ashamed and disgusted" by the "homophobic behavior of the House of Delegates."

Have I mentioned that I hate Virginia?  I'd also note that this kind of rank bigotry is why I cannot support ANY GOP candidate currently.

George Will - Newt Gingrich, the Anti-Conservative

I increasingly disagree with much of what George Will has to say as he seems to sliding increasingly into the Kool-Aid drinkers' camp. But from time to time he still gets it right as in a column in the Washington Post that excoriates Newt Gingrich's attacks on the judiciary. The irony in Gingrich's attacks are that the federal judiciary which seems the main target of his wrath is typically pretty competent given the approval process and FBI background checks that federal judges go through (two former law partners are on the bench so I saw the process close at hand). Now state court judges, that's a different matter. Judges are either elected as in many states or appointed as here in Virginia. Sadly, in Virginia, politics plays a larger role in judicial selection than competency. Hence why there are a number of circuit court judges who, in my opinion, have no business being on the bench. They're incompetent and made it through the selection by kissing the right asses. But back to Will's column. Gingrich's attacks on the judiciary threaten the controls on the legislative and executive branches of government. Something that is critical with a number of legislatures only more than willing to trample on the rights of minorities as they pander to the Christianist/Tea Party crowd. Here are some column highlights:

When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary.

But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly to members of Congress, who rarely even read the laws they pass.

So, Gingrich . . . . warns that calling the Supreme Court supreme amounts to embracing “oligarchy.”

Judicial deference to majorities can, however, be a dereliction of the judicial duty to oppose actions irreconcilable with constitutional limits on what majorities may do. Gingrich’s campaign against courts repudiates contemporary conservatism’s core commitment to limited government.

Gingrich radiates impatience with impediments to allowing majorities to sweep aside judicial determinations displeasing to those majorities. He does not, however, trust democratic political processes to produce, over time, presidents who will nominate, and Senate majorities that will confirm, judges whose views he approves.

To teach courts the virtue of modesty, President Gingrich would attempt to abolish some courts and impeach judges whose decisions annoy him — decisions he says he might ignore while urging Congress to do likewise. He favors compelling judges to appear before Congress to justify decisions “out of sync” with majorities, and he would sic police or marshals on judges who resist congressional coercion. Never mind that judges always explain themselves in written opinions, concurrences and dissents.

Gingrich’s unsurprising descent into sinister radicalism — intimidation of courts — is redundant evidence that he is not merely the least conservative candidate, he is thoroughly anti-conservative. He disdains the central conservative virtue, prudence, and exemplifies progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power. He exalts the will of the majority of the moment, at least as he, tribune of the vox populi, interprets it.

Atop the Republican ticket, Gingrich would guarantee Barack Obama’s reelection, would probably doom Republicans’ hopes of capturing the Senate and might cost them control of the House. If so, Gingrich would at last have achieved something — wreckage, but something — proportional to his swollen sense of himself.

Gingrich: 'Activist Judges' Should Be Arrested

The batshitery that Newt Gingrich is willing to vent in his non-stop effort to utterly prostitute himself to the Christianist elements who would overthrow the U.S. Constitution if possible seems to know no limits. In Gingrich's latest episode of diarrhea of the mouth, Gingrich has espoused the desire to arrest "activist judges." Of course, Gingrich and his puppeteers from the Kool-Aid drinking set would take it upon themselves to define "activist." Personally, if Gingrich wants to arrest activist judges, he can start the process with Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia who are trashing the U. S. Constitution in an effort to enshrine their personal religious beliefs and bigotries into the law. The only good news is that even as Gingrich becomes more of a tawdry whore, his poll numbers have been dropping. Here are highlights from ABC News on Gingrich's desire to undermine the federal judiciary:

Presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested today that he would have the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals arrest activist judges, citing an incident in which a sitting federal judge ordered students not use the word "benediction" in their high school graduation.

Gingrich, who currently leads the polls in the field vying for the Republican nomination, made the suggestion in response to a hypothetical scenario posed on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"If you had to, or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall," he said. "Let's take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical."

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery received harsh scrutiny from many in June for a ruling barring religious speech during the high school graduation ceremony at Medina Valley Independent School District in Texas. The ruling was quickly overturned by a federal appeals court, but Gingrich used the incident to launch a greater assault on what he said is a judiciary out of touch with mainstream values.

Gingrich also cited "The Federalist Papers" today to make his case for weakening the judicial branch.

"The constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, executive branch and legislative branch," he said. "'The Federalist Papers' say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary. [Thomas] Jefferson abolishes 18 out of 35 federal judges."

Judges do not have the power to write new laws but are often criticized for overturning old laws or enacting new policy when lawsuits are successfully argued in court.

But in contrast to his hard-line position on judicial activism, Gingrich said he does not believe that all illegal immigrants should be arrested en mass. "I do not believe the American people are going to send police out to round up folks who have been here 25 years," Gingrich said.

Judiciary Still Plagued by Homophobia

As I have noted in previous posts, the judiciary - and the legal profession as a whole for that matter - continues to be plagued by rampant homophobia in many areas of the country and certainly here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. In Virginia, the Canons of Judicial Conduct that bar judges from allowing bias based on sexual orientation and gay bashing by opposing litigants are routinely ignored just as biased judges continually ignore the requirement to abstain from hearing cases with LGBT litigants. Worse yet, from my experience, the Virginia Judicial Review Commission does absolutely nothing to stop the widespread discrimination. As an article in The Guardian makes clear, the problem is not isolated to the USA or Virginia. LGBT citizens continue to face discrimination in the courts and certainly in the area of judicial appointments. Yes, there have been appointments of LGBT judges to federal courts and in some states, but in truth such appointments are few and far between when factored against the total number of sitting members of the judiciary. Here are highlights from The Guardian that look at the shared problem in the UK:

Until 1991, unmarried men and women – including gay and lesbian lawyers – were excluded from entering the judiciary. Unsurprisingly, homophobia, or at least a strong perception of it, still lingers. According to recent research by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legal group Interlaw, 70% of LGBT lawyers believe there is prejudice within the selection process for judicial office.

The judicial appointments committee (JAC) – the body founded in 2006 to enhance judicial accountability – is keen to remedy this. Last month, it began monitoring the sexuality of wannabe judges (it already monitors gender, ethnicity, age, professional background and disability). The JAC is also increasing its engagement with the gay lawyer community through talks at LGBT legal events and the publishing of case studies of gay judges.

[L]aw firms remain some way from being gay utopias. A potent undercurrent of unspoken homophobia exists at some of them – a problem illustrated by a handful of online comments made in response to an article last year advising young gay lawyers on how to come out at work.

It's little wonder, then, that law graduate Adam Fellows, who is openly gay, was advised by a junior barrister not to publicly mention the fact he had a boyfriend during his hunt for a traineeship. Another concern is how international corporate law firms increasingly apply anti-discrimination policies in their offices in countries where homophobia is the norm.

Homophobia is rife in the Hampton Roads legal profession and yours truly remains one of the few openly gay attorneys in private practice. The sad truth is that to be openly gay makes one basically unemployable by any of the local law firms - even the few that have non-discrimination policies that purport to protect LGBT attorneys and staff.

Alaska Wingnut Wants Sex Outside Marriage Made Illegal

I and others have said before that the Christianist jihad against LGBT citizens is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true Christianist agenda. Much much more would be criminalized if they had their way and inflicted a theocracy on the nation. Contraception would illegal, so would premarital sex and anything comprising "sodomy" under the far right definition. Now one nut job in Alaska - an appointee of Governor Sean Parnell to the panel that nominates state judges - has come out in the open and testified that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage. The loon is Don Haase (pictured above left). Oh, an did I mention that he has held a leadership role in Eagle Forum Alaska? It certainly explains his batshit crazy insanity. Here are some highlights from Anchorage Daily News:
*
Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.
*
The candidate, Don Haase of Valdez, also admitted under questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that his official resume failed to disclose his leadership role in Eagle Forum Alaska, which advocates for social conservative issues. He most recently was president of the organization, but resigned when he learned of his nomination, he said.
*
By the time the hearing on Haase ended -- there was some 40 minutes of questioning by the panel's three Democrats, some questions suggesting that Haase had attempted to scrub clean a record of extreme beliefs -- his nomination may turn on an issue of geography, not personal values.
*
Haase would replace a member from Ketchikan, whose departure leaves the council without a public representative from Southeast Alaska's First Judicial District. Valdez is in the third district, headquartered in Anchorage. The state constitution mandates that council appointments be considered by "area representation." That has been interpreted to mean one public member from each of the state's three most populous judicial districts, . . .
*
Haase -- pronounced "hays" -- has done electrical and mechanical design work at the trans-Alaska pipeline terminal in Valdez since 2000, first working for Veco, then for CH2M Hill. . . . . His resume listed such extracurricular activities as his roles in producing and starring in local plays for tourists and being a member of the Valdez Snowmachine Club.
*
One blog post on the Eagle Forum Alaska site praised efforts at criminalizing adultery in Michigan, and Paskvan asked Haase if he thought it should be a felony in Alaska.
*
"I don't see that that would rise to the level of a felony," Haase said.
*
Paskvan: "Do you believe it should be a crime?"
*
Haase: "Yeah, I think it's very harmful to have extramarital affairs. It's harmful to children, it's harmful to the spouse who entered a legally binding agreement to marry the person that's cheating on them."
*
Haase said he opposed judicial activism, and cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade as an example. In his campaign for state House last year, Haase made his opposition to abortion a central theme. Abortion is also a prominent theme on the Eagle Forum Alaska blog.
*
One has to wonder how Governor Parnell came up with Haase as a nominee. He's clearly unqualified in terms of selecting judicial appointees - not to mention a religious extremist nut. I wonder if Haase is one of Sarah Palin's know nothing crowd?

The Tyranny of the Majority

The UK newspaper, The Guardian, has an editorial that looks at the debacle that takes place for the rights of minorities when the granting of civil rights is left to the majority. The column correctly notes that but for the action of the federal judiciary, we might well still have segregated schools, bans on interracial marriage and a host of other types of legal second class citizenships. Sadly, the Christianist right anti-gay industry has figured out the bigotry of the majority and I suspect will continue to push for a state by state vote on gay rights until at some point the federal courts get off their asses and call out religious based discrimination for what it is and strike down Christianist bigotry written into law via the ballot box. When that day will come, I do not know, but it is clear to me that the federal courts are the most assured course for achieving full equality - particularly since President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have made it quite clear that they truly do not give a damn about us. Oh yes, they give us pretty speeches but refuse to act. Here are some column highlights:

*
After whinging about "activist judges" for a decade, the rightwing has convinced a plurality of Americans that decisions about same-sex marriage shouldn't be made in the courts – and it's because they know, and here is more evidence, that putting the rights of a marginalised class to the majority means those rights will be denied. The judiciary, however, is generally less susceptible to persuasion by expensive campaigns run by the anti-gay industry.
*
Historically, we have depended on the courts to make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and they have repeatedly secured protections for marginalised groups decades before Congress and state legislatures, which more closely track public opinion, would have done. John Rogers once noted that "when the supreme court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia v Loving, 72% of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until – sweet God – 1991".
*
Waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is simply not in our collective best interest. There is no legitimate claim to be made by opponents of marriage equality that their lives will be diminished by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. Too much evidence to the contrary, even now in their own country (I'm looking at you, Massachusetts), debunks that assertion thoroughly.
*
Sometimes the stragglers at the tail end of this slow march of progress need a boot to get them moving forward. When the legislatures haven't provided it, it has been the judiciary's job to deliver it instead, as marginalised groups were never meant to have no recourse against discriminatory practices, even if the will of the majority is to extend the codified biases in perpetuity. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
*
This country is not, and never has been, well-served by leaving the civil rights of the minority in the hands of the majority. Putting that up to a vote which is subject to deeply held prejudice is ruling not by democracy, but by mob mentality.

*

The irony, of course, is that when one closely follows many of the "pro-family" Christianist organizations, it becomes clear that if it were up to these folks, we would still have racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage. They are bigots and theocrats and unfortunately, they have figured out how to convince a majority of simple minded voters to fall for their lies and fear mongering. It makes me sick.

Attacks on Independent Courts Are Attacks on America

Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal Executive Director, has a good op-ed on 365gay.com (http://365gay.com/opinion/oped/oped.htm), that looks at the attempts by the Christianists to undermine an independent judiciary. Contrary to what the Christianists contend, the Courts should be the last defense of minorities from the tyranny of the major and the last protectors of equal rights of all individuals. That is certainly the concept that the Founding Fathers had in mind. Disingenuous politicians would totally reverse this equation and support unfettered majority rule, thereby making equal rights available to some, but not all citizens. To be candid, these people disgust me, especially since most of them cynically whine about an "out of control judiciary" when they know damn well that they are lying to pander to bigots. Here's a portion of Carthcart's column:

We knew it wouldn't take long before the Iowa judge who struck down the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples was pegged an "activist judge" by the usual suspects. They say they are defending "traditional" marriage and our democracy itself. But their attacks on the judicial system are about as un-democratic as you can get. What is going on here? It's old-fashioned antigay sentiment wrapped up in attacks on America's independent courts. The problem is these tactics are as dangerous as the homophobia that inspires them.

When politicians attack judges who are simply doing their job enforcing the Constitution, it is a strike against our government itself. The founders of this country recognized the danger of placing too much power in any one part of the government. To avoid this, they separated authority into three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial. The branches exercise "checks and balances" over one another, to ensure that the law of the land is upheld and that the core principles of liberty and equality are available to everyone.

Within this system, the courts have always been the appropriate place for people to seek help when their constitutional rights have been denied. America's founders agreed that there were certain rights so fundamental that they cannot be taken away, regardless of majority sentiment. Whether the issues invoked are considered controversial or not, even the fervor of 99 percent of the public does not entitle people in power to deprive those in the 1 percent minority of their fundamental constitutional rights.

The Constitution protects us all against the ardor of those who believe passionately in the rightness of their cause. Regardless of the strength of their belief or how many may join them, they are not entitled to impose their will on others. Nor can they attack a court that rules in favor of fairness with desperate cries of "activist judge."Politicians' strong words against the courts may win them support from some people at the polls, but this comes at great risk to the system of government upon which this country was founded. That means anyone who attacks independent courts is, in essence, attacking America. We need to stand up and denounce these attacks in Iowa and anywhere else they occur. Our courts, our Constitution and our country depend on it.