Friday, April 22, 2005

2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds

As part of the discussion, Perkins and Dobson referred to remarks by Dobson earlier this year at a congressional dinner in which he singled out the use by one group of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants in a video that Dobson said promoted a homosexual agenda.

Dobson was ridiculed for his comments, which some critics interpreted to mean the evangelist had determined that the cartoon character was gay.

Dobson said the beating he took in the media, coming after his appearance on the cover of newsmagazines hailing his prominence in Bush's reelection, proved that the press will only seek to tear him down.

"This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me look ridiculous," he said.

For once Dobson speaks the truth! Especially considering just a few paragraphs above the article cites him whining that Justice Kennedy looked to laws in Europe for his decision on executing minors, but didn't look at the laws of countries that fare less well in the matter of civil rights:

Perkins and Dobson laid out a history of court rulings they found offensive, singling out the recent finding by the Supreme Court that executing minors was unconstitutional. They criticized Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion, noting that the Republican appointee had cited the laws of foreign nations that, Dobson said, applied the same standard as "the most liberal countries in Europe."

"What about Latin America, South America, Central America? What about China? What about Africa?" Dobson asked. "They pick and choose the international law that they want and then apply it here as though we're somehow accountable to Europe. I resent that greatly."

Yes, I'm sure China is the perfect role model for us to take our laws from.

Not to mention the fact that we have the co-founder of Focus on the Family complaining that we can no longer execute children.

Then there's this gem of a quote, from his April 11 radio broadcast:

I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that's what you're talking about.

But I think Dobson still has some work to do if he wants to surpass Edwin Vieira:

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering [not the same gathering as Dobson held] 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.”

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.” Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

That's right. We've got people calling themselves the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration implicitly advocating murdering judges who disagree with them. Real Christian of them.

“The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is,” Schlafly asserted.

Perhaps Ms. Schlafly is unfamiliar with Marbury v. Madison? Quoting from,

[W]hile the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.

So it looks like the Supreme Court does get to say what the Constitution is. And has gotten to do so for over 200 years now.

No comments: