home

Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy

Justice Kennedy is in the cross-hairs of the radical right.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

I have to disagree. The Kennedy Commission and its recommendations are primary reasons. From the press release (pdf):

The commission noted that the United States imprisons more people than any other country in the world. With more than 2.1 million people behind bars, and some 650,000 set to be released this year, the commission urged jurisdictions to invest in programs that help inmates return to communities, provide alternatives to incarceration for offenders who would benefit from substance abuse and mental illness programs, and help eradicate the disproportionate impact "tough on crime" laws have on minorities. The commission also called on Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences.

The commission noted that about one-third of the more than 650,000 inmates who will be released this year can be expected to return to prison. Many of its recommendations are intended to help jurisdictions find ways to reduce the recidivism rate. One method, the commission noted, is for Congress and state legislatures to eliminate unnecessary legal barriers that make it difficult for some to become productive members of society. People with drug convictions-even minor possession charges, for example, are permanently ineligible for federal student loans, housing assistance or public assistance.

He's okay. [Via Oliver Willis.]

[Comments now closed, thread diverted.]

< Eric Rudolf's Legal Counsel | Victims' Buttons Warrant New Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    I Love it, what a third world, the usa is becoming mexico. how long before we start to see assassinations by one side or the other? by executive order, or has that happen?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#2)
    by roger on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    The radical right has now officially become mentally ill

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#3)
    by BigTex on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    I used t' support Justie Kennedy fer Cheif Justice when th' timne acme t' appoint a new CJ. However, I can't say that anymore. Here's th' problem with Justice Kennedy. It's not that he supported endin' juvanile needle stickin'. Th' manner he went about reasonin' his decision is what has caused th' controversy. He could o' used th' US constitution t' justify his rulin'. That would have raised th' ire o' some, but it would have been on sound legal reasonin', and only th' usual suspects would o' been upset with th' decision. Problem is that he indicated that becasue foreign countries don't needle stick juvinles we shouldn't either. That's very poor reasonin'. Needle stickin' is a totally domestic issue. Foreign countries should have no say in th' matter. Yet Justice Kennedy took care t' note th' foriegn countries opinions. That's givin' away some soverginty when there is no rational reason t' do so. He abused his authority by makin' a point t' use foreign countries laws as justification fer makin' his rulin'. His job is t' interpret th' US Constitution, not anyone elses. Since this was a purely domestic issue there is no justification fer basin' a decision on what other countries do. Should he be impeached? No. Should he be subject to criticism fer his actions? Absloutley.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    How sad (and alarming) that the Repubs want to change the rule of law in this country for the rule of vigalantes. Despite the judiciary's careful assessment of medical evidence and testimony in the Schiavo case, for example, the judiciary is targeted for 'not recognizing the Truth.' The Truth, presumably, comes from those Republican vigalantes who can evaluate the patient and the evidence without ever having seen it. Justice Kennedy represents the rule of law, and is therefore suspect in this vigilante view of Justice. (Again, Justice according to those Republicans who can evaluate the options and the evidence without ever having seen it.) It is alarming that the neutrality of the judiciary is under challenge -- as was the validity of "biased and corrupt politicians" making decisions for the common good of voters.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    Aren't the grounds for impeachment of a Supreme the same as for the Prez? Does issuing a decision that one wing of one party disagrees with constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    Let's just go bck to posses' and hangings. They worked so well for us in the past.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    The judiciary has long been a loose cannon in this country, creating new "rights" out of whole cloth. E.g. Roe v. Wade, the Mass. decision on gay "marriage," etc. People are sick of having judges act like this. Judges who make such decisions and then complain when their independence is attacked have only themselves to blame.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    The requirements for impeachment only appear in Article II on the Executive, so any grounds for impeachment of judges must be in the federal law books somewhere.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    Spainster, if you actually read the decision in the Mass. case, you might disagree with yourself. The Mass. state constitution has an equal protection clause that doesn't restrict itself to "one man, one woman". And the Federal government (Congress or the Supreme Court) has no jurisdiction in the Mass. case, because it has to do with Mass. law, not a federal constitutional issue. Go study. You might find that you'd actually feel better knowing the facts, as opposed to a set of religious right sound bites.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    Tom: A bit off topic, but my great grandfather led up a posse out of Dodge City that was deputized to go after horse thieves. Someone actually wrote a book about him and his posse. His daughter (my grandmother) just died, and I haven't been able to find the book. I'm dying to get a hold of it, because I haven't read it since I was a little kid. What I do remember from it though, is that they caught a band of horse thieves near the Nebraska border, and they were all hanged.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    Durn activist judges.'Oh my god, just what we need is to lose another good judge for a repuglican styled one. Request for "BigTex", I once again had to stop reading your post about 1/8 of the way through. Any chance of a literate version for people who have little to no patience, like me?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    Once in a while he does, and I praise Jeebus every time he does. He's such a well-spoken, thoughtful guy, and that gets completely lost when he "translates" to Texan.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    just remember...it's Phyllis Schlafly! Those damn Reagan appointees!

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    Remember this judge was appointed by "Ronald the Reagen" the same guy who had Executive Order 12333 date december 4 1981 used on you. anyone for real chaos just keep it up and i will be happy. it appears that both sides and having way to much fun; "doing each other", and not working for us at all, it must be the political-collapse agenda thing. I for one would love to see some of the judges inside Guantanamo.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#15)
    by Al on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    Big Tex, if I have interpreted correctly your increasingly insane spelling, I take it you object to a judge looking to other countries for precedent. Are you really so insecure that you think that's giving up sovereignty? It's called research, and it's very wise. You should really consider the possibility that you actually might have something to learn from others. And it's not "needle-sticking". It's called "killing".

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#16)
    by roger on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    Tex, It would seem that the phrase "cruel and unusual" would inherently involve the fact that we are the ONLY ones doing something. Not even all of our states. Just some. Unique IN THE WORLD. sounds relevant to me

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    Michael; If you find the book, let me know.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    If I even knew what it was called, I could search the Western Kansas libraries for it, but I don't. It's somewhere in my Grandma's house. Either that or my mom got it a long time ago, she doesn't remember. But I definitely will share it when I find it.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    It's unfortunate that judges that actually do what they are supposed to do by the Constitution are labelled "activist," whereas judges that want to overthrow the Constitution in favor of some right-wing ideology are considered fair. Kennedy is no liberal, he is a conservative, but by following the rule of law and by doing his job correctly, he has been labelled activist. When even the judges no longer follow the Constitution, the Constitution is dead. I say that right now almost every (not all) Republican in Washington has violated his or her oath of office, and has failed to protect the Constitution of the United States. We can't expect them to impeach themselves for being traitors, though, can we?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    Tex - Well said. Al - Can you show us where the SC is supposed to research foreign law instead of the US constutution? Somehow, I don't think you can.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    Actually, Phyllis can be in favor of the death penalty on whatever grounds she likes except the New Testament.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:24:38 PM EST
    They eat their own.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#23)
    by roger on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    Jim, The Constitution gives the powers to negotiate and sign treaties. Treaties are, essentially, legal contracts. If we negotiated a treaty to commit a crime, slavery say, what makes you think that a court could declare that treaty void? Think it through, if the courts couldnt enforce treaties, states could levy illegal trade tarriffs.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:37:46 PM EST
    The judiciary has long been a loose cannon in this country, creating new "rights" out of whole cloth.
    Sure, freedom for blacks; voting rights; civil rights; citizenship for Native Americans; et al; it's been a long hard struggle. Too hard-earned to give it up to a bunch of right-wing nut cases.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    In determing the meaning of the constititution it can be boiled down to: It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:52:26 PM EST
    Sure, freedom for blacks; voting rights; civil rights
    I thought these decisions in this century were based not on judicial law-making but the 14th and 15th amendments. gee

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    Anyone seen a list of senators, representatives, exexcutive branch officials, etc., who attended this Nuremberg Rally...I mean conference? Every attendee should be considered a potential terrorist. What are the odds that Homeland Security will interview them and add them to a list? Or is that hoping for too much? If the attendees were other that the American Taliban, the conference would have been raided and everyone "detained".

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    another "activist" judge they're aiming for, eh? I'm hoping St. Ronnie will come down and haunt their dreams and tell them he is displeased with their actions against his memory. Maybe they will wake up with new views. I'm at the point where I just read what the Rethugs are doing and just wonder "W.T.F?"

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    Roger - We've been here before. What we have here is a judge going out and using other sources beyond the constitution to make new law. That's BS. It has nothing to do with "treaties."

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    JCH, judicial law-making has been used time and again to enforce the Constitution. Even though the Constitution supposedly gave black people equal rights back in the 19th Century, it took another century of fighting AND the intervention of the courts to finally secure those rights. And even today, the fight goes on. All it takes is a couple more laws to put us back in chains.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:42:21 PM EST
    Claxton My point: It was understood in 1865 that the Constitution did not by implication or design give equal rights to blacks. Or women for that matter. When society agreed that this was wrong it passed amendments to fix this. It was not judicial law-making (the Supreme Court did not write these amendments by fiat), but judicial enforcement of the constitution from that time forward.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#32)
    by roger on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    This fact, along with many other facts, show that the punishment is "unusual". Considering that only 50-some odd people, sentenced as juveniles, were even on death row, do you consider the punishment common, or usual?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:59:50 PM EST
    On impeachment of federal judges, Article III, Section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ...

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    Those troubled by judges appealing to matters outside the U.S. Constitution, or creating "new" rights, should read the 9th Amendment.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    who's decision is it what rights were retained by the people? Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branch? Why would the unelected branch be the one to decide?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#36)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    Tex, Kennedy clearly cites the 8th amendment. The international reference was superfluous. I wish he'd left it out. It inflames nationalism. Nevertheless, death is cruel. Too cruel to be used within our fallable legal system.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#37)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:15:34 PM EST
    Nineth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Fleetguy, it is in the Constitution. Judges are the interpreters of the Constitution.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#38)
    by BigTex on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    Kennedy clearly cites the 8th amendment. The international reference was superfluous. Che - that's my point exactley. He could have gone with the Constitution, but instead deliberatley chose to add in information from other sources. I don't disagree with the opinion, though think that O'Connor's dissent was the best opinion. I still believe that my scheme of age of consent equals the age for eligibility of execution is the best scheme. The problem is that Kenendy threw in the foreign country information. Other future Natural Law justices (and I hate to quibble, but Kennedy isn't a conservative, he's natural law which makes him a true moderate along with O'Connor)will use his opinnion as precedent to once again look at other countries laws to decide what the law should be in domestic affairs. It's understandable to give some consideration to other countries laws in areas like commerce where the impact of the law crosses political boundaries. But the death penalty doesn't. It's purely a domestic issue and what the world does shouldn't matter as far as what the US Constitution says. That's all his job is, interpreting the US Constitution. He had the option of using the 8th amendment to explain his opinion, but intentionally looked outside the Constitution and US law to justify his opinion. In a purely domestic situation that's shameful.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    It is hard to interpret a hole; a catch-all. And if a judge were going to interpret this hole - they would have to do so based on the society at the time of its writing. Those are the only unmentioned, retained (this was present tense writing not future) rights the you can be sure the framers meant. Which is what the majority opinion in Roe v Wade tried to do - whether you agree or not they tried to look into the religious and moral environment at the time the Constitution was written. They did not look at the state of abortion law in Europe in the 1950's. You cannot just throw new rights into this hole and then discover them there. That is why the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments were necessary - rights for women and blacks were not in the retained rights of the 9th amendment. Those new rights come by society making the decision to extend them - and that is not the judiciary's job.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:43:42 PM EST
    Those are the only unmentioned, retained (this was present tense writing not future) rights the you can be sure the framers meant.
    Yet you feel free to assume that the framers meant for an open-ended statement to be interpreted in such a closed manner. Does it say somewhere in the Constitution, or in the writings of the authors of the Constitution, that the Constitution is intended to be interpreted only according to the customs of the time in which it was written? Or is this some extra-Constitutional assumption you've made?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#41)
    by roger on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    Tex, You should stay with english, it works for you Wait until you see some of the WTO decisions that will be coming in the next few years! It will rock your socks.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    Well there you go - the logical answer to the question "why?" is "why not?". I believe that it was resonably closed-ended - which is why we have further amendments enumerating further rights - you do not. You also cannot show any basis for the founder's not having a more narrow interpretation.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#43)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    What if a child of a foreign country commits a capital crime in the U.S.? Would that in any way temper your opinion? I understand that we have foreign adults on our death row.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#44)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    Fleetguy, you say "I believe...", and then challenge allen to support his interpretation of the issue. You must remember though, that neither of your interpretations are executable, the final arbiters are the Supreme Court Justices. Case closed.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    No, the final arbitors are the people of the United States who through their elected officials may amend the constitution or change the laws if they believe the courts have gotten it wrong.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    No discussion of the ethics and standing of justices would be complete without mentioning the five soiled justices, including Justice Kennedy, who blew a hole in the Constitution big enough for the Bush truck to drive through, and so betrayed the country for their own NAKED PARTISANSHIP. "As Professor Robert Post of the Berkeley Law School has observed, "I do not know a single person who believes that if the parties were reversed, if Gore were challenging a recount ordered by a Republican Florida Supreme Court," that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas "would have reached for a startling and innovative principle of constitutional law to hand Gore the victory." Bush v. Gore

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    the logical answer to the question "why?" is "why not?"
    My argument wasn't quite that simplistic, but OK. Or try this - do we interpret "an establishment of religion" only according to the religious organizations known to the authors at the time the Constitution was written? And on a different topic:
    without mentioning the five soiled justices
    Which is why I favor electing federal judges. Since they're clearly already not above playing politics, why maintain the pretense?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#48)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    Has the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration issued a fatwah yet? Or is it yet to come?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    Electing Federal Judges would be like electing local judges -- a farce. The public does not have enough information or training to make that kind of technical decision, nor is majority rule and election fitting for a SUPPOSEDLY non-partisan judiciary.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:48:44 PM EST
    Allen Probably. The founders would have freaked out over what we've done with that line. They came out of the state churches (and the wars launched) of England, France, Spain, etc. They never said church and state should be separate, only that the country should should not respect one of them in particular. Even as an evangelical - I am not in a particular rush to have this bad interpretation reversed. I do not want the state teaching morality to my child - its my job. There is no Biblical basis for expecting the state to forward the aims of God - it is for God's people to do that.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#51)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    No, the final arbitors are the people of the United States who through their elected officials may amend the constitution or change the laws if they believe the courts have gotten it wrong.
    I don't disagree with you on this. However, until and unless the constitution is amended or the laws are changed, we live by the interpretations of the Supreme Court. And after such changes, we live with their interpretations of the changes.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    Exactly

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    And now...getting back to the American Taliban conference and their fatwa (spot on, desertswine)against the judiciary.... For all the right-wing maniacs saying that there is nothing in these statements that can be remotely viewed as suggesting violence against the judiciary, note self-titled "constitutional scholar" Edwin Vieira's relaince on Stalin at the conference. Vieira shared that his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem'". Vieira, of course, is disingenuous. The full Stalin quote is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Why are these Stalinist thugs not being called out as the terrorists they are?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#54)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:39:55 PM EST
    silo, exactly who will call them out? I fully agree it should be done, but who, how...? Maybe it is too late. Or maybe we have just now caught up with the real intent of these terrorists. Did they manage to keep their intentions covert until they had all the power they needed to easily overthrow the government by deception? The judiciary is the last seat of power where they have only a slight majority, and of course that is not enough. They now use overt terroristic threats. They have trained us so well that words mean what they say they mean, that they can pretend that to be called out is the real crime, and the callers out are the real criminals. Now what?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#55)
    by wishful on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:41:20 PM EST
    terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:37:24 PM EST
    Allen, Now with the ilk of wishful and silo on the left calling me "the American Taliban"; and whatever the right would call them - and the inability of the extremes to even begin to tone down their rhetoric to try to win hearts and minds - the center battles for the judges. This is because only they are capable of "making laws" now. Shouldn't we all be calling for strict construction now; rather than pursuing our political agendas in the courts.?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:13:35 AM EST
    Electing Federal Judges would be like electing local judges -- a farce.
    Hey! My grandfather was an elected local judge for most of his working life. What exactly are you trying to say about him??? But back to the issue at hand. I've assumed that "American Taliban" was a reference to Christianists (as I've heard they're properly called, much like the distinction between Muslims and Islamists - but I think of them all as fundamentalists). It seems accurate to me, based on the article referenced here. This attack on the judiciary is being made by Christian fundamentalists who really want to make the U.S. a Christian nation. It really isn't about making sure judges are good judges. It's about making judges use the Bible, as interpreted by fundamentalists, rather than the Constitution, as the source of law. These people will never be satisfied as long as democracy survives. It is fascinating how the epithet "liberal" has lost its sting. Now these people have to refer to those they oppose as "Marxist, Leninist, satanic", while they quote Stalin.
    Shouldn't we all be calling for strict construction now
    If I understand you, JCHFleetguy, we wouldn't even agree on what strict construction is. I'm a little troubled by the idea that the right to bear arms only applies to the arms of the late 18th century. As much as I like to beat up on the Supreme Court I think the court system is working reasonably well. Of course, as a liberal living in Texas, I find the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Gore v. Bush painfully ironic.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:20:30 AM EST
    CHURCHY WANNA GET PAID" "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." - D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:38:50 AM EST
    Roger - Sometimes the "rocker" becomes the "rockee." Big Tex - Exactly, again. But Kennedy didn't do that on a whim. He knew what he was doing, so we must assume that he did for a purpose. And since it will be cited as precedent, then he did it to make law. Now that is unexcusable. And it is not, but it should be, an impeacable offense. And it is things like this that adds backers to those who are attacking the judicary.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#61)
    by wishful on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:45:45 AM EST
    Fleetguy, I called you no such thing. Don't let your ego get in the way of your analysis. I was not referring to you, unless "Fleetguy" is your screen name and your real name is Phyllis Schlafly or Edwin Vieira or those with them, publicly espousing what these two did in the subject "conference".

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:07:59 AM EST
    wishful - You know, the language at this "conference" was heated. And it did remind me of some of the rants I have seen on TL and other blogs about Bush. Different hell, different demons, eh? Roger - I have thought it through. Treaties are ratified by the Senate. If the Senate ratified a treaty that said we must quarter troops in our homes, and if the corresponding country had such a law, would the SC say that was legal?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:39:03 AM EST
    wishful: I was really using "me" in the broad sense that I am one of those republican, born-again christians who believe I have the requirement to vote and act my conscience - based on my fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I admit I am probably one of the farthest to the left in my church (I voted for Kerry). I really wasn't taking your comment personally. Christians in general stand at about 80ish% of the population, born-again folks like myself at about a third. We are far more rational than given credit for; but we have seen some closely held beliefs and institutions attacked by court decisions we think are reaching. Hence the need to take control of the courts. That is really the problem with "activist" judges - they have heightened the battle to politically control the courts to a far greater level than I have ever seen before. Allen: I have argued fairly rationally - so give me a little credit. Arms are arms. I was talking about the 9th amendment - the catchall. Strict construction of the right to bear arms would say you could bear them in an organized militia - not elsewhere. Again, I might not like that interpretation either - I dont trust government that much.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    Kennedy clearly states that his look at the practices of other countries re: juvenile death penalty is merely instructive and not "controlling" in any way:
    Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility. Yet at least from the time of the Court's decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 1198 (2005)(emphasis added).
    That said, he has plenty of support for his argument domestically. He finds a consensus view in the 30 states that prohibit the practice and the rarity of it in the other 20. For better or worse, *that's* the meat of his argument. I can understand Kennedy's interest in using international standards to add weight to his argument. The problem with "cruel and unusual punishment" cases is that the Constitution simply doesn't tell you how to interpret the 8th Amendment. It just doesn't. The Court has developed a test for cruel and unusual punishment that involves looking for a national consensus as to what is cruel and unusual. While the national consensus is the controlling part, it makes sense, and does no harm, to point out that there may be a global consensus that a particular practice is cruel and unusual. Anyway, I would suggest that those unhappy with the decision spend more time on Kennedy's "National Consensus" argument, than freaking out about his dicta on international standards.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#66)
    by wishful on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 08:50:58 AM EST
    That was me at 9:50.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:12:30 AM EST
    I also was not referring to any poster here as an American Taliban...just those that the conference attracted and that, notwithstanding their disingenuouos protestations, quote Stalin and advocate violence against the judiciary for doing what they are supposed to do....decidng case by applying the law to the facts.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#68)
    by roger on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    PPJ- You're getting my point. Your situation would come under "conflict of laws", so the Constitution would (probably) win. A couple of weeks ago, Slate.com had a legal article on how our treaties may force importation of legal cannabis, NAFTA has provisions that would overule the SC. This is an area that will see much action in the future. You are right re rocker/rockee, but it will be interesting. But- The executive negotiates a treaty. The senate ratifies, so the Court rules in accordance with its provisions. How would that be "activist"?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    The way some on the right are spouting the word "activist", it seems to have become a synonym for "sane".

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    " " Thank you for the compliment. I am many years away from my advocacy of revolution. But I am just a level of frustration away from the emotion of those folk. Roe v Wade has led to 3800 deaths per day of people we believe are alive at conception; prayer has been removed from schools by an interpretion of the Constitution no founder would agree with; our most precious institution (more than our churches), Marriage, under attack. None of these actions would have happened if believers in these things had attempted to amend the constitution (or even pass laws) to make this so. It has not happened through any political dialogue or process - but by Judges stretching their interpretation of the Constitution in ways that are arguably "activist". The christian community is "circling the wagons" against this, and many leaders are taking the battle to where they see the problem - the judicial system - and not to where they should - the hearts and minds of the people. Blacklashes get ugly

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    " " 1) Ive read Roe - my mom had one of those illegal medical student abortions. I personally abhor abortion, but ive already posted here that I am not in favor of abortions being illegal. 2) I could personally care less about prayer in schools. My younger daughter's desire to pray or not is not based on her school. 3) The attempt to redefine marriage as other than between a man and a woman is a line I do draw. Now that the personal stuff is aside - my point is the frustation deeply religious people feel at this chain of events; and that none of these events occurred as part of a political discussion about these issues. My personal lack of identification with 2 of the 3 is probably why I am not more personally frustrated. I implied all this by the "winning hearts and minds" line in what I said - we cannot expect the political system to do our spiritual work for us.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    "Posted by JCHFleetguy: "Roe v Wade has led to 3800 deaths per day of people we believe are alive at conception; " WHAT? No we don't. We do not believe that conceptums are people. NO RELIGIOUS TRADITION HAS EVER BELIEVED THAT. 40% of all conceptums do not implant or fail, and are washed out in the next period. Shall we imprison 40% of all fertile sexually-active women for murder, you say? Absurd. Nearly all religious traditions consider the 'person' of the fetus ('the soul') to ENTER the otherwise empty vessel in the Quickening, when kicks and movements can be felt by the mother. That point is about three months after the point that you think is a 'person.' Quickening aside, the fetus is not a person in our system until they can survive outside the womb (and thereby the bloodstream) of the mother. Until that time, they are a PART of the mother's body. They are not persons, unless you still trail an umbilicus. They are viable on their own as persons at about 6 months, though really at 7-8 months with any reliability of survival. "The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities." An 'individual person' (ignoring the tautology in this definition) is one which can live individually. A conceptum is microscopic. That's not much of an individual life, so we must refer instead to the VIABLE late-term persons who may be delivered without their immediate death.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    Paul I will assume you hadnt read my 2nd post before the jail the women comment. The Supreme Court in Roe made the quickening argument (which I actually agree with) along with recognizing the history of common law and church belief on inception of life; and only gave the mother unlimited privacy rights for the 1st trimester because after that the legitimate arguments for the right of the fetus began. Extend a little to our current ability to save premies at 21, 22 weeks (and look ahead to future advances of medicine). All of that aside, I am NOT talking about abortion, school prayer, or marriage - but why a backlash is gathering over judicial decisions.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    And besides, a fertilized embryo failing to implant or washing our would be death by natural causes - not death by procedure. Stay real.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    The christian community is "circling the wagons" against this The 'christian community'!? wtf, you don't speak for them, you speak for one tiny rabid segment of a community that generally believes in the teachings of jesus. show me where jesus said 'god hates fag$', show me where jesus said 'kill judges you disagree with', show me where jesus said his followers could tell my 8 yr old niece 'if you don't belong to our church you are going to hell'. Show me where jesus said unto you, 'if your girlfriend escorts another friend to Planned Parenthood for bc pills it is ok to surround them, splatter them with blood and scream that they are murderers'. Some freakin' values you and your horde have. I don't want your bizarre beliefs controlling science decisions. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. But leave me and mine out of your narrow minded, 2000 yr old superstitions from a region that is still fighting about the basics they were fighting about 2000 yrs ago. Yet another reason why there is a constitutional separation between religion and the state.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    you speak for one tiny rabid segment of a community
    How many states passed marriage bills by what margins?
    'god hates fag$'
    God didnt - said opposite*
    'kill judges you disagree with'
    God didnt - said opposite
    'if you don't belong to our church you are going to hell'.
    God didnt - said different*
    ok to surround them, splatter them with blood and scream that they are murderers'.
    didnt - said WAY opposite * some further discussion inappropriate here required Wasn't this thread about why a significant segment of the population feels anger and frustration at judicial decisions and their actions in regards to those feelings (i.e veiled threats against judges)?

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    If abortions were illegal, would they stop? In other words, they are going to do it anyway. We will have honest discussion about it when legislators are allowed to debate it, rather than judges determining it through judicial fiat. Now this: "I Love it, what a third world, the usa is becoming mexico. how long before we start to see assassinations by one side or the other? by executive order, or has that happen?" You "love it", Fred? I have never read a disparaging remark by you against another poster on this site, but I find that remark truly frightening.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    Here is a little viability link

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#71)
    by wishful on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    Roe v Wade has led to 3800 deaths per day of people we believe are alive at conception
    If abortion were illegal, would it stop? Would you advocate the death penalty for the formerly pregnant mother? The medical staff? Are you interested in preventing abortion, or punishing those who have and facilitate abortions? My God prefers that abortion be not necessary in the first instance. Your contention that Roe is what led to abortions is not accurate. It only led to legalization and reporting of abortions instead of unsafe secret procedures for the poor, and safe secret procedures for the rich. Roe led to the fact that you and I and everyone else can can have a more intellectually honest discussion about the problem of abortion. I am not born again--I reject the notion of that interpretation. However, I am with you that abortion is tragic (though you seem to go farther than I in your judgement and condemnation of those in such dire circimstances as to even feel compelled to consider abortion). Addressing the problem of poverty would go a long way in preventing unwanted pregnancy, by making most pregnancies wanted, among other things.
    prayer has been removed from schools
    I am assuming from this that you want public schools to command students to pray in school in a way that can be assessed by some government authority. My son is 21, and is in college now, and I believe that he prays privately, probably at least prior to his advanced calculus exams. (Forgive his selfishness--he is still young, and I think that he prays for others too.) As a youngster, he was cared for daily in the home of a close friend of mine who is a born-again Christian. She, her two children, and my son prayed together aloud each morning before catching the bus to school. This seems appropriate to me. Religous instruction and practice seems the province of the home, not public officials. (My husband died of cancer when my son was just 6 by a few weeks. I had to work to put food on my family if you are wondering. My friend's husband made a nice living--she didn't work outside the home.) I do not approve of state-ordered public praying that must of necessity in our country be made so generic to satisfy all denominations and no denominations that it becomes a mockery of meaningful prayer, thankyouverymuch.
    Marriage, under attack.
    My marriage was fine, thank you. I am sorry to hear that someone is attacking your marriage or that of someone you know and love, if that is what is happening.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#65)
    by wishful on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    I was really using "me" in the broad sense that I am one of those republican, born-again christians who believe I have the requirement to vote and act my conscience - based on my fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I admit I am probably one of the farthest to the left in my church (I voted for Kerry). I really wasn't taking your comment personally.
    You specifically said that
    Now with the ilk of wishful and silo on the left calling me "the American Taliban"
    I see that you know well the English language. So I know well that you are being disingenuous when you say what you were referring to by "me" (republican born-again Christians) was the same as who I referred to when I said "terrorist" (Vieira and HIS ilk). You do see the difference I'm sure, yet you try to portray ME as one who is putting you in the same category as Vierra, which you know is incorrect. Are YOU really conflating people like Vieira, who is issuing extremely thinly veiled calls for assassination of judges who do not abide by Biblical law, with yourself and all born-again Christians? That is what your words are saying, but I don't believe it. I think that you don't really call for such assassinations.

    Re: Radical Right Targets Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    We're way off topic here. This was about Justice Kennedy. I'm closing down the comments.