About Those Judges?
How should we interpret the compromise this week where some of the worst of Bush's judges were deemed sufficiently okay to pass on to the appellate courts? The biggest problem that I can see is that there are not enough people in our government representing the Constitution and the people of the United States to truly understand what is at stake. If there had been enough people in the Senate who really understood what was at stake, there would have been enough Republicans to stop Frist's play. There would have been enough Republicans to recognize that these candidates are truly outside the mainstream and are stealth candidates who are part of the Religious Right's plan to take over the American government. There would have been enough Republicans who would have voted against any candidate that didn't really support the Constitution.
Katherine Yurica has been following the Religious Right from the 1980s having transcribed over 1300 of Pat Robertson's 700 Club shows in the mid 1980s. She is well aware of the fact that the plan of the Religious Right was to first takeover the American government and then to conquer the world. And she knows that one of the key factors to making this work was to capture the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government in 2004.
Here is what she wrote last year before the election about what Pat Robertson and the Dominionists planned as noted in one of Robertson's programs in 1985:
I had always read [Romans 13] to be St. Paul’s concept of a good government providing beneficial services to the governed and I restricted its meaning to only a lawfully constituted government that rules justly.
But read Romans 13 in the light of Machiavelli’s and Leo Strauss’s discourses on religion and its uses by a political leader, and one glimpses the danger that Dominionism represents to the American people and to the American way of life. For it can be read to mean that any lawful government is ordained by God to execute retribution and punishment upon those who challenge (resist or rebel against) unjust policies of a government. When read this way, it takes on a new and sinister meaning. Or, it can be read to mean that once a new government of the United States of America has been established under biblical law—then no citizen will have the right to resist it or rebel against its edicts. In other words, the Declaration of Independence will no longer be applicable to the regency established by the Dominionists. This is how Romans 13 reads in the New English Version:
“Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive. For government, a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment, for retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties they devote their energies.”
This section, if taken literally as fundamentalists are apt to do, appears to prohibit any kind of resistance against the policies of a government, including peaceful protests, petitions, and writings. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to endorse that position, for he quoted this same Romans 13 passage in his article, “God’s Justice and Ours,” to prove that Christian doctrine states “government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God.” Government is not only the “minister of God” but it has the authority to “execute God’s wrath.”
The power of the sword is surely the power to kill or maim and certainly the power to intimidate. Scalia believes the power of the sword in this passage is “unmistakably a reference to the death penalty.”
At this point, Scalia demonstrates the absolute brilliance of the judicial rule created by neo-conservatives that requires a judge to determine the “original intent” of the writers of the Constitution. As Scalia himself describes it, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead…It means today not what current society…thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” Once the original thinking is determined, the judge can enforce the Constitution only as a document that is bound by the time zone in which a particular passage was written.
When I first read articles by authors who were exposing the Dominionists’ intention to extend the death penalty to cover “crimes” like adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness, I found the death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It couldn’t be done in America.
I was wrong. I now realize that we are very close to seeing the Dominionists achieve their goal. All they need to do is to appoint a majority of judges who will adhere to the “dead Constitution” construction rule of Scalia (or what Harry Jaffa called “the original intent” construction rule). At the point when the Dominionist’s control the judiciary—that judiciary can roll back America’s body of legal jurisprudence to a century or more ago as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams pointed out.
So, while we cheer that the nuclear option was avoided, the confirmation of Priscilla Owen to the appellate court is another victory for the Religious Right as they work to take over the government and impose the equivalent of Shariah law from the Old Testament. These people have been working assiduously for the past 20 years to take over the federal government. All the battles we are engaged in today are to stand against their coup. What will it take to get the "moderate middle" educated about this very real threat?