Unfazed by irony, the right seeks help from activist judges

The United States Supreme Court today announced they will not hear a challenge to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. With right-wing groups on record deriding the Supremes as "activist" for striking sodomy laws from the books in 2003, the challenge was nonetheless filed by religious conservative group Liberty Counsel on behalf of the Vice President of Catholic Action League.

The decision by the SCOTUS not to interfere was far from a surprise, and neither is the religious right's decision to cross their own picket lines to seek help from "activist judges." While their communal rant against judges who they feel cross the line between judiciary and legislative continues, the Liberty Counsel is trying their opponent's tactics on for size; the boys and girls at the Supreme Court aren't biting, however.

This will certainly add fuel to the claim that "liberal activist judges" are to blame for the nation's ills. With the outlook for a legislative ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts looking worse in the aftermath of election 2004, however, the religious right might need to start preparing some "liberal activist legislators" spin.

When we said "big tent," we didn't mean you.

It seems that for some Republicans, the 2004 sweep of victories has meant that the formerly much-revered "big tent" just doesn't quite need to be that big.

Moderate Arlen Specter felt the singe of the right's fire and brimstone after his ill-advised shot across the conservative bow earlier this month asking the President to be mindful not to appoint judges who would "change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade."

Religious rights groups like the American Family Association fired back with grassroots alerts urging conservative-minded Senators to vote against Specter for the Judiciary Chair slot. Whether these campaigns are successful or not will be determined in the coming days as Congress returns to work this week to stop-gap fund the government through January.

If Specter is ousted as Chair, the religious right's grip on the GOP gets stronger, and the GOP campaign message gets altered: It's a big tent, but if you don't agree with the President on hot button Bible issues, it's not big enough for you.

Activist judges should stop actively judging

Outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft railed against "activist judges" last week during his first post-resignation public appearance. The conservative stalwart warned judges who, in his opinion, are "second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war."

The term "activist judges" has become synonymous in right-wing circles with all things liberal and wrong with the world. Add in the fact that questioning the President and/or the war was considered "un-American" by rabid Bushies even before George W received his mandate from the masses, and Ashcroft's got a double shot of conservative rally juice.

Thankfully, Ashcroft is no longer the sitting Attorney General, so it's a moot point to say that his call for a blanket judicial "pass" on all war-related decisions made by the Bush Administration is not only reckless but also flies in the face of the balance of powers.

I'm guessing those "activist" judges wouldn't have listened to him, anyway; giving the right-wing "activist" activists yet another reason to assert they should be stripped of their power to judge.

What do [insert disaffected group here] do now?

With the Presidential election behind us, those folks who found themselves less than 100% behind the President are asking the same question: "What do we do now?" A few thoughts:

[party social moderates]
While most pollsters and pundits were focused on the so-called "daddy issues" of terrorism, defense and homeland security, prior to the election, the postmortem of the nation's decision tells a different story. Namely, that the actual force behind the Bush victory was "moral values." While spinners on the right will say that means "God and family values," in the real world, it's about abortions and gays.

These moderates have some soul searching to do, and they're likely wondering if their souls are as blessed as those of their more socially conservative partymates. They're rightly concerned about their place in the party and if the religiously motivated right-wing of the party is right in claiming a mandate to lead the party down the path of light to Holy victory.

Social moderates have hope for the future of the party, as two top-tier moderates' names have already been floated for 2008: Giuliani and McCain. If they've got some free money and time, they'd be well advised to take a page from the left-wing handbook: early money is like yeast.

[gay republicans]
Although they might hold the same political views as their social moderate counterparts, gay Republicans are perennially seen as self-haters for aligning themselves with a party who consistently uses their lives as a wedge issue to win campaigns. This year was no exception - beyond the President's marriage amendment proposal and 11 state-level bans on gay marriage, the Republican Party approved a platform that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes any recognition of any type of same-sex relationships.

Like their straight counterparts, these boys and girls will likely cringe at the thought of a death or retirement on the Supreme Court, and will be cheering on efforts by moderate Senators like Judiciary Chairman-to-be Arlen Specter to ask the President to send middle-of-the-road judges to the Upper House for confirmation. Gay Republicans have the same hope for 2008 as the moderates - that their party will be saved by the venerable former-NYC mayor or the rogue Arizona Senator.

[democrats in general]
Arguably the most disaffected group of all, the Democrats are scrambling to find their place in this new world. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to do so this week by sending a plea for new money, noting that "Republicans unleashed every weapon in their arsenal to deliver a knockout blow to Congressional Democrats. They failed!"

Clearly, someone should have mentioned that they need to find their place in the real world. In less fundraising-centric circles, however, the Democratic House Leader has been seen mentioning God and church quite a bit more often in the course of television interviews, which may only further justify the moral right wing's superiority complex in Republican ranks. Pelosi seems to be enacting Roll Call Executive Editor Morton Kondracke's Tuesday missive on the Dems and God.

The Dems are also looking four years ahead, but the only two names that keep popping up are Edwards and Clinton. While those names will certainly get their own fired up, this year has proven that their own just isn't enough. The Republican names on the hotplate for '08 are inherently party-line crossers and will suck the energy out of either Edwards or Clinton.

But it's a long four years. Who knows what might happen by then. President Obama, anyone?

What Would Jesus Vote?

As the nation goes to the polls, every politically-motivated group in America wants to go with them. Over the past weekend and spilling over into yesterday, both parties and the interest groups that support them were working overtime to remind you who is the right man to vote for today.

So it is with the folks at WorldviewWeekend.com, a partner ministry of American Family Online, an Internet service provider dedicated to serving Christian households with heretic-free web surfing. Worldview Weekend, which sponsors Christian seminars and boasts actor Kirk Cameron as one of its featured speakers, sent an e-mail missive to its members yesterday giving them a "no bones about it" view of today's democratic (small d) activities.

Brannon Howse, the group's President and Founder, penned the letter, in which he states rather unequivocally that his belief that "anyone that does not vote on Tuesday is sinning and anyone that votes for Kerry is committing an even greater sin!"

As if that didn't do enough to seemingly run counter to the Christian ideal of love and understanding - not to mention the Internal Revenue Service's code of conduct for religious entities - Mr. Howse goes further in his tirade:

This is no time to waste votes on third party candidates..A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Kerry. If you disagree that is fine....don't waste your time sending me an e-mail about it because I will not waste my time reading it.

Is this how Christians should approach this election? Hardly. Support for Bush by the majority of Christians is expected and understood, but this kind of nasty electioneering smacks of something that is decidedly un-Christian - and perhaps more directly important today - un-American.