Direct hit. Thank you, Ophelia.

On the other hand, the left is actually kind of ambivalent about the religion and values thing, so talking religious freedom just won’t play with many.

Separation of Religion/Values and State is yet another problem for similar reasons. How is it that Fundies and the other odd forces that would go Fristian would argue for or even desire that the empire go Christian? This is the end of that long “family values” train building since Reagan.

And there is a paradox. They want the state to intervene. This is how secular fascists like limbaugh manage to stay viable talking about the “blow-job” leftivism still lurking in our culture. It is not that any would be Frisian wants the State to save them and their loved one’s from oral sex. Probably far from it. They want to silence and shame further an already silenced left.

It is not about oral, but aural sex. It is not even about sex or values. It is actually beyond the pale as politics. This is not a lively rivalry of brothers, but to the death.

Evey G-d fearing and G-d loving bone in my body says they want the return of The most hideous Father. Perhaps we should just sit back a bit and let them build it. All the while warning and educating the fearful Fundi and Fristian masses as to what is really happening.

If and when the time must come, perhaps we can get rid of this most hideous Father they seek to return upon civilisation. I do say civilisation lightly, ‘casus we have never really managed to put the bastard in his place. Always making concessions, trying to be reasonable, etc.

Love the name of the Blog!

frustrating, all this logic-chopping on the merits, when what’s happening is clear and familiar. This is meant to lead to a final solution.

There’s a real argument to be made that it’s the Republicans rather than the Democrats who are attacking “people of faith,” by trying to impose a one-size-fits-all set of religious values through rigging the judicial system.

Henry, not only is this complete nonsense, but it’s obvious that you yourself don’t believe it. If you really thought that a majority of the population was against the Republican agenda of “impos[ing] a one-size-fits-all set of religious values”, then it would actually be in your interest to ensure that “judges….are expected to kowtow to the whims of lawmakers”. In fact, you’d see the Republicans’ “rigging the judicial system” to make judges subordinate to legislators, rather than vice versa, as a heaven-sent gift from stupid conservatives. You’d advocate that Democrats happily go along with the Republicans’ judicial plans, then attack their policies directly at election time—without reference to the judiciary—and sail into office. A full slate of liberal social policy legislation would ensue—all of it invulnerable to the complaints of Republican judicial appointees.

But you know full well that the public are on the Republicans’ side, not yours, and that only an arrogantly anti-democratic judiciary is preventing them from enacting laws that you deeply oppose. Of course, it sounds bad to admit that you support all this tyrannical judicial obstructionism, just because you like the results. So you pretend that you’re doing so on behalf of a supposed silent majority that fears the Republican moral agenda. But your strategy of defending judicial prerogatives against democratic legislatures gives you away completely. If the public are really at your side, ready to elect liberals to office if necessary to thwart Republican theocrats, then why are you so afraid of the Republicans’ plans for ensuring legislative supremacy over the judiciary?

In the Schiavo case, the Federal government—specifically the DeLay/Frist Congress—far overreached its boundaries and attempted to override the decisions of the Florida state courts, which were properly upheld by the Federal courts out of respect for, you guessed it, state’s rights.

This legislation was a direct attack on state’s rights, and the Christian Fundamentalists weren’t just looking the other way at it, they were howling in unison demanding it. How then could you assert that they are merely trying to assert state’s rights. I’m sorry, I’m going with the “state religion” hypothesis. Enough of the radical Fundamentalists represented in own Congress have gone on record stating their goal to turn the USA into “a Christian Nation” that I see little need to guess here.

perhaps to some extent we are talking past each other – but the point remains that even though the Congressional legislation formally only guaranteed a new review of the facts, the aim of Republican leaders was unambiguously to sway the judges towards a particular substantive outcome. Hence their complaints after the decision that the judges hadn’t listened to Congress.

As for abuse of discretion: it isn’t easy to overcome, contrary to your assertion. Demonstrating that a trial court abused its discretion in finding facts is actually a very difficult thing to do, if one follows the law.

So respect for legal process and an ordinarily healthy collegiality and deference to another member of the judiciary likely played a part. It is also possible that the fact that only a minority of the members of the appellate courts shared those values (grant that factual conjecture for the sake of argument) lead to what Cass Sunstein, et al, would call “collegial concurrences.” (See Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeal: A Preliminary Investigation for an explanation of a possible mechanism.)

As for the Congressional legislation: it promised only a new review of the facts of the case. It didn’t guarantee a particular substantive outcome to the review.

As for these persons setting up a state-imposed religion, are you serious? Of course you mean what you say, I’m not questioning that. I guess you’re right about their motivations. I deplore their uncivilized tactics, as you do.

But do these people really worry you? Do you suppose there’s any chance they will establish a state-imposed religion? It is far more likely that the moon will crash into the earth.

For me, the perversion of the roles of the separate powers is what’s really important. That you consider this “unlikely to resonate” with your political allies confirms my sense of Democrats’ civic irresponsibility.

“Corruption” is a far better weapon in this fight. Frist is USING the Religious Right to serve corrupt purposes. The judges he pushes through will not support establishment of religion, or anything more trivial symbolism. That’s not the danger. The immediate danger is that the Republicans will be able to leverage the religious right to push through a Federalist Society clone army, which will resurrect the Constitution-in-Exile, to end Federal regulation of business and wealth.

The goal of Frist and company is economic and (essentially) secular. Frist and company are using the religious right for corrupt purposes. The most effective political strategy is to “reveal” the corruption, and thereby peal the religious right away from Frist.