According to the Washington Post (article -April 9, 2005), the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration recently organized a panel to discuss “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny” and to explore charges leading to the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy :

This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo’s parents; Alabama’s “Ten Commandments” judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope’s funeral.

The Schlafly session’s moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a “radical secularist relativist judiciary.” It turned more harsh from there.

I suppose that Dana Milbank, the author of the Washington Post article, was recalling this:

[L]awyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.”

And this:

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem,’ ” Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don’t recognize it, is “Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.”

When he wrote that things “turned more harsh from there.”

Conservatives and their Republican minions are growing tired and desperate at their in inability thus far to fast track the implementation of their socially conservative agenda; and, therefore, their wails and veiled threats against judges are likely to grow louder over the upcoming months. Sure, the base of the socially conservative movement welcomes the attacks on judges, and don’t mind being portrayed as extremists — even radicals — because they believe that they’re doing it all for a good cause. However, moderate Republicans are, I think, beginning to realize that they made a deal with the devil when when they partnered with the fundamentalist faction of their party. So, the question for us is, how do we exploit this? How do we reach out to these so-called moderates, while simultaneous underscoring that while the Republican leadership sides with the extremist base of their party, the issues that we all care about — Iraq, Social Security, etc. — are ignored and pushed off of the Congressional agenda?

As Kos has already pointed out, I believe that our talking point on this issue is the principle of “Separation of Powers,” something we all learned about in high school history and understand from those days. We, Democrats and Progressives, stand in defense of the principle of “Separation of Powers,” while Republicans work to destroy the Constitution with their attacks on Senatorial proceedings (i.e., ending the long history of debate on the Senate floor) and, now, with their frontal attacks against the courts — a co-equal branch of government.

Senator Harry Reid, of course, has already framed the situation along the lines of protecting the principle of “Separation of Powers,” when the Democratic leader announced that Senate Democrats would vigorously defend the system of “checks and balances.” With that in mind, whenever there’s an opportunity the “Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances” meme should be repeated to reinforce Senator Reid’s point; because this is a way of presenting the fight over the judges in a way that people understand and get.

Of course, considering the tragic magnitude of the situation and the equally momentous miscalculation by Congressional Republicans, including President Bush, in choosing to intervene in the private family matter, their blatant political pandering backfired. Accordingly, Republican supporters immediately moved to question the authenticity of the “GOP talking points memo” on the Schiavo tragedy. As always, Republicans were successful in getting some mainstream media shills to go along with the Republican assertion that the memo was a fake. Now, however, the author of the memo has stepped forward and, surprise, surprise: the memo was written by a Republican lawyer working out of Senator Mel Martinez’s (Republican – Fla.) office.

The Washington Post has the story:

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said. [Article - Thursday, April 7, 2005]

For more on the “GOP talking points memo,” which Republican’s circulated hoping exploit the Schiavo tragedy, see Jerome Armstrong’s post on MyDD.

March 29, 2005
What’s Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it’s also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that “one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Now he and his party, shocked by the public’s negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn’t let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what’s going on in America.

One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents, hasn’t killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that’s going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through “Terri’s law.” But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice – a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge’s order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

[...]

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

[For the complete column click here - free subscription required]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush’s Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion.

“The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now,” said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Republican leaders and President Bush had little choice other than to respond to Christian evangelical demands on the Schiavo case or risk alienating a crucial part of their political base, political analysts said.

[...]

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian Family Research Council, said the furor over Schiavo was the direct result of years of campaigning against abortion.

[...]

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, conservative columnist and former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan set out the stakes for Republicans.

“The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can’t save this woman’s life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it,” Noonan wrote.

In campaigning for Schiavo to live, some Christian conservatives, including Sheldon and James Dobson who heads the influential Focus on the Family organization, also argue against the notion of a “right to die,” even in cases when an individual clearly states his own wish not to prolong life.

“I don’t believe in a right to die. I think that God is in control of our destiny,” Dobson said recently.

Reasonable Americans need to be FULLY aware about the nature of the federal government’s actions — at the behest of a vociferous faction — in deciding to interfere in this private family matter. Moreover, we should not be timid nor reluctant in confronting those that would jeopardize our system of laws, plurality (religious, ethnic, etc.) and federalism. Now, this may sound merely as an academic concern; however, it is through a series of small, incremental actions that policies and our national direction can be changed — interference in the tragic Shiavo case is such an example.

Now, to demonstrate that my concern — and the concern of others — is shared across party lines, here’s what Republican Representative Christopher Shays has said on this matter:

“My party is demonstrating that they are for states’ rights unless they don’t like what states are doing,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. “This couldn’t be a more classic case of a state responsibility.”

“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” Shays said. “There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.”

Again, I sincerely hope that so-called moderates everywhere are paying close attention to this case… because there’ll be more like it if we permit it.

Finally, do keep in mind that the only reason why certain groups (in the federal government and elsewhere) are focusing so intently on this one case is because they belive that they can score political points — given the “circus” they’ve created around what should’ve been a private matter. This, unfortunately, is the sad truth.

For instance, note that while other cases (i.e., 03.15.05 – Texas infant removed from life support with backing of Texas law) are ignored by the federal government and the media, Shivo’s tragedy garnered a special Congressional session. Again, the only reason why this occurred is because the party in control of Congress believes they can politicize the issue, and thereby score political points with their supporters. Back to the Texas law mentioned above, Texas Futile Care Law, the law was signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization — [article]).

Interestingly, at the heart of the Texas Futile Care Law, cited above, is this rationale:

“(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).”

In other words, if the patient can’t afford to pay for treatment, and if no other hospital is available to take the patient, the hospital can seek to refuse treatment — including life support. (Which is exactly what’s occurring in this other Texas case.) Now, if the party in control of Congress and of the White House truly cared about the issue, and not merely about scoring political points with their supporters, why aren’t they calling for special sessions to step into this and other cases as well?