GOP Incites Bloodshed for Poli-Power?

The "conservative movement" has been admired for some time ( by detractors & proponents alike ) for it's ability to get out the message, stay unwaveringly on point despite contrary facts, and mobilize "foot soldiers" to lend "cannon fodder", in the form of protesters and call in campaigns.
This has enabled the Republicans to secure and hold control of the entire Federal government in all three branches.
But now, spinning like a perpetual motion machine that it’s creator can’t stop, we have what alarmingly is quickly getting out of control: the verbiage by movement leaders that can easily be construed as the invitation of violence and/or death upon those considered the "opposition" - even though they too are Americans and elected officials.
Part of what has lead to such a cadre of willing foot soldiers is the consistent framing of issues in a war context. It is the deepest, most binding and primal psychology underlying any human grouping; “ We are under attack and must raise up together to face the threat.” The impending “destruction” of “all we hold dear” has been the rallying cry against the enemy since we could communicate in full sentences.

Look to the curiously titled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference recently held in Washington as a perfect example. The implications of losing a “war” of course, are taught to us from childhood. So the context of this conference is set, not in the metered prose that anti-defamation organizations regularly operate in as their reason for being, but in a “battle is before us” mindset. Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff of Oklahoma's GOP Senator Tom Coburn, was quoted by a reporter just outside the conference as saying “I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

The reporter, Max Blumenthal, wrote: For two days, on April 7 and 8, conservative activists and top GOP staffers summoned the raw rage of the Christian right following the Terri Schiavo affair, and likened judges to communists, terrorists and murderers. The remedies they suggested for what they termed "judicial tyranny" ranged from the mass impeachment of judges to their physical elimination.
The speakers included embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay, conservative matriarch Phyllis Schlafly and failed Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Like a performance artist, Keyes riled the crowd up, mixing animadversions on constitutional law with sudden, stentorian salvos against judges. "Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was the focus of evil during the cold war. I believe that the judiciary is the focus of evil in our society today," Keyes declared, slapping the lectern for emphasis.

A completely unveiled threat came from a prominent Lawyer in the conservative movement: Edwin Vieira, a lawyer and author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, went even further, suggesting during a panel discussion that Joseph Stalin offered the best method for reining in the Supreme Court. "He had a slogan," Vieira said, "and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'"
The complete Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
Here is Tom DeLay speaking on this conferences core issue ( “liberal or overactive” judges ) "The judges need to be intimidated ". Keep in mind this man is a US Congressman and GOP Majority Leader. He also said, after federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
I also had the displeasure, being an avid C-SPAN viewer, to see this “off the cuff comment” that Blumenthal writes about: Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

Seeing the big picture, it is easy to see where the chess-game-for-political-power gambit is originating from: frustrated with Democratic filibusters that blocked consideration by the full Senate of 10 of Bush's first-term nominees to the powerful federal appellate courts, Republicans are looking to make extremists judges, the type they agree with, to appear as “saviors” . As every savior needs a devil, the “liberal” judges are cast in the part, both figuratively & literally.
What’s a good Christian soldier to do, when ‘Generals’ like Delay/Frist/Cornyn/Judge Roy Moore, legitimized by their elected offices, point out the ‘devils’, like Judge George Greer ( who order Schivao’s feeding tube removed) and moderate Republican, Reagan appointee Judge Anthony Kennedy?
Maybe Judge Greer can answer: "This isn't Colombia. This isn't drug lords terrorizing the judiciary. It's America," as he said from behind a phalanx of police bodyguards.
More and more, we have a faction utilized and mobilized on America by those seeking to maintain power. The motivation for that faction is religious autonomy over the secular. In “doing God’s will”, we have seen some of the most barbarous examples of what humans are capable of; this, it can be feared, will be no different.


Washington Post

The Nation

This is the desired end result of the right-wing program: the dismantling of Constitutional government, and the emplacement of a militarist theocracy in it's place. This is not some far-future possibility, it's happening now, and by the time the majority of the people realize what has happened, it will be too late.

Didn't quite follow the incitement to bloodshed bit, not that the extremists on both ends don't have bombers and haters.

"Constitutional" government exist in the U.S. in form, but since FDR punked the Supreme Court to have his way in 1936, and through the power of the commerce clause of the 10th amendment, the Federal government of both Dems and Reps awarded itself socialist oversight of both the country, (and in the neo-cons thinking, the world.) and has pretty much nutered the constitution.

I think it's just trying to create a mindless nationalist state that flexes military power and shoves it's views down your ( a citizen) and the rest of the world's throat. All of this is done through fear, intimidation, and defamation of anything that stands in its way. [the radical right] there is an undesirable radical left movement as well, it's not as powerful but it's just as damaging in my opinion.

Originally posted by Realist05
Didn't quite follow the incitement to bloodshed bit

The Republican Majority leader stating that Judges need to be intimidated AND that "they're time will come"

A Republican Senator on the floor of the Senate musing how violence against judges can be expected

The Chief of Staff for another Republican Senator stating that he wants judges IMPALED.


Not to pick on you, but this head in the sand bulls**t of "there's bad/extremes on both sides" is not even remotely appropriate here. You've got high placed party leaders advocating lynch mob politics. You've got the primary financial backers, legal minds & authors quoting Joseph Fu**in Stalin on how dead judges would be no longer a problem.
The Fascist creep is no longer a creep, but a full promenade stroll on all levels & in full view.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Realist05
Didn't quite follow the incitement to bloodshed bit

The Republican Majority leader stating that Judges need to be intimidated AND that "they're time will come"

And Alberto "I love torture" Gonzales is said to have just authorized the sweetheart "no death" penalty deal for mass bomber, maimer and murder Eric Rudolph in part because of "Culture of Life" issues.

Meaning they don't want the heat for executing an abortion clinic bombing "conservative Christian" marytr.

Some theo-terrorism is obviously okay, when you rely on the wedge votes of theo-terrorist sympathizers.

I guess intimidation from the right is worse than inflammation from the left!

But I would suggest another viewpoint: both the left and right have signed on to a "Big State" corporatist federal government that strips American citizens of many of the guaruntees of constitutional law as written.

The angry rhetoric flowing between the parties masks the reality that there are few real differences between them in regard to exercising power.

The focus of this thread was to call out the fact that GOP leaders are treading too fine a line & that there will potentially be White Christian Male Domestic Terrorists that will kill people because of it. need an example? Look to the murder of doctors, nurses & escorts for them at abortion clinics. We're not there yet, but the same "Preaching from the Mount" inspired those less stable terrorists to kill.

Can not say it any plainer.

Both parties behind the scenes leadership is corrupt. The one in complete control right now is the Republican side of the coin. They are the ones running plays from the Fascist play book circa 1940's .....to the letter. Part of that? Identifying and demonizing an enemy, any enemy or enemies. Make that enemy less than human....maybe worthy of being impaled? Or simply murdered? Whip the Brownshirts of Blackshirts into a frenzy about the "sanctity" of their "society" or "constitution" or "religion".
Then sit back & watch it happen & how the policies that fascism wants sail smoother through the guise of legality.

Taking the hyperbole out however, judiciary activisim is of concern. Why don't people focus on the abortion doctors anymore? They know that the only people that can overturn Roe and Doe are the judges. I think what is being said under all the rhetoric is that jusges are indeed endangering themselves by making decisions that are moraly divisiive and that can't be checked by the other 2 branches. I am not advocating the killing of anyone, but I do see what the underlying message is- restoring checks and balances.

Scifemme, I have heard those charges numerous times here before, but yet I have yet to see one specific example.

What decisions are you talking about?

I truly do want to know, so please post some links or give some specific examples of:

a) Legislating from the bench

or
b) Activist decisions.

I personnaly can't think of any, so if you can, I would love to hear some specific examples of this. So far all I've heard is rhetoric.

Are we ready GOP? are the men in positions for the coup? When can we have our tanks rolling down the streets of new york? you make it sound as if Republicans are going to overthrow the government and install a military dictatorship, Oh! of course, your a new yorker and [Mod Edit To remove racial attack and attack aimed at another member]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

"black to boot"? WTF? So all blacks are liberals? last I checked Condi is black and look at her, a parrot for Bush, his second wife, the next GOP candidate for President........

ALso, yes! Bush himself has even stated being a dictator is easier. Just waiting for it.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Here is Tom DeLay speaking on this conferences core issue ( “liberal or overactive” judges ) "The judges need to be intimidated ". Keep in mind this man is a US Congressman and GOP Majority Leader. He also said, after federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
I also had the displeasure, being an avid C-SPAN viewer, to see this “off the cuff comment” that Blumenthal writes about: Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
The Nation

This is such a joke. Not a single quote in there involved conservatives inciting bloodshed.

Let me help you out - take for instance the above quote. There are different types of intimidation. Physical is one, but is not the type reffered to by DeLay, he is reffering to political intimidation which is used by ALL political entities to achieve their ends.

Then there is the reference that Judges will have to answere for their behavior. Exactly how does one equate that with bloodshed? Did he say they will be stoned? Executed? Beaten? No - he said they will have to take responsability for what they did, which they will.

The bottom line is that MOST violent acts are done by LIBERALS not conservatives. Just look at the drive by shootings last election. All this is is propaganda and the twisting of words which all you liberals fall for, hook line and sinker.

Wait, the liberals do violence? Sorry, they are the tree hugging hippies, conservatives are the blow up a hospital for playing god, ie curing the sick. They shoot doctors for saving lives, they burn down houses because the person inside was a nurse, not to mention the spouse and kids.

Also, gee, Delay is one step away from "Kill em all mother*******" and he isn't inciting violence, sure. Maybe the new animal for the republican party can be an ostrich.

Originally posted by Trustnone
Are we ready GOP? are the men in positions for the coup? When can we have our tanks rolling down the streets of new york?

you make it sound as if Republicans are going to overthrow the government and install a military dictatorship, Oh! of course, your a new yorker and [Mod Edit To remove racial attack and attack aimed at another member]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

I missed your post prior to edit, but from JTL's response, it seems you said I'm "Black to Boot"?
That's a new one....I never knew I was Black.......guess my pigment has been lying to me all these years!!

As for the ramblings:

- The military has been regularly deployed to NY - pimple faced teen/twenty somethings in full gear have already met NYers coming off of trains.
- We have the RNC here, junior, with more military hardeware & air support than most small countries
- Why would the GOP overthrow a government they completely control?
- Why don't you come in from the ledge & contemplate the fact that the same terrorists who've targeted medical professionals are the sames ones who can move up the line and kill judges over the same issue?

It's only a joke if you don't look past your own nose, AMM. What exactly do you consider impaling someone to be....a form of tickle play!?
Since when is any form of intimidation, political or otherwise, acceptable to bring upon our courts? He's off the reservation for sure, but you can't be simple enough to expect Delay to issue lynch mob assembly instructions directly!?
Public office is more nuanced oration than anything else.

"This isn't Colombia. This isn't drug lords terrorizing the judiciary. It's America,"

This may be your ideal and you may find it acceptable practice, but Americans worthy of the title do not.

Just look at the drive by shootings last election.

Huh did I miss something?
There were politically motivated drive bys last year?!
Wow and I thought I stayed on top of the news!!

Here are just some examples. I'll be the first to say that some cases of judiciary activism, like Brown v. Board of Topeka Kansas, have done good, but we do have a system of checks and balances. Where's the line?
1. Roe V. Wade
2. Doe v. Bolton
Due to those 2 decisions, abortion is legal in the US up until birth for pretty much any reason and no legislation can ever be passed limiting it because it infringes on what the Court decided.

3. Marbury vs Madison - the one that started it all, with this judicial review was insituted, allowing the judiciary to overturn any laws it saw unfavorable, ann the exceutive or the legislative can't overturn this.

4.Mapp v. Ohio
5. Regents of the University of California v. Allen Bakke
6. H. Earl Fullilove v. Philip M. Klutzniok

Thank you scifemme for responding.

On the abortion decisions I will agree to disagree as I don't want to turn this thread into an abortion discussion. I however do believe that it should be about choice, not morality, just my personal opinion.

Anyway,

Lets take a look at the other cases you mention.

Marbury v. Madison

www.uen.org...

This 1803 decision marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the court. He held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion established the power of judicial review—that is, the court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional.

This one I agree can be interpreted as activism on the judges part. However as this decision was made in 1803, and pretty much gave judges the power to interpret laws according to the constitution, I think this is a positive example. If judges were not allowed declare laws unconstitutional, they would have no power, and would not act as a balance to the other two branches.

Mapp v. Ohio

www.oyez.org...

The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

This is one decision I happen to agree with. All I see in this case is judges protecting the bill of rights. I don't see that as activism. Well unless you count constitutional activism, in which case, that is the duty of the judiciary as set forth in Madison v. Marbury.

Regents of the University of California v. Allen Bakke

supct.law.cornell.edu...

judgment as originally entered by the trial court contained four separate paragraphs, two of which are of critical importance. [n2] Paragraph 3 declared that the University's special admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The trial court did not order the University to admit Bakke, because it concluded that Bakke had not shown that he would have been admitted if there had been no special program. Instead, in paragraph 2 of its judgment, it ordered the University to consider Bakke's application for admission without regard to his race or the race of any other applicant. The order did not include any broad [p410] prohibition against any use of race in the admissions process; its terms were clearly limited to the University's consideration of Bakke's application. [n3] Because the University has since been ordered to admit Bakke, paragraph 2 of the trial court's order no longer has any significance.

Not sure where you are going with this one.

This decision only applied to Bakke, and he was allowed to re-submit his application. Some clarification would be great on how this is activism judiciary.

I think you might be thinking of a affirmative action angle but as the judges said,

It is therefore perfectly clear that the question whether race can ever be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an issue in this case, and that discussion of that issue is inappropriate.

Fullilove v. Klutznick

www.oyez.org...

Facts of the Case

In 1977, Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. H. Earl Fullilove and other contractors filed suit, claiming they had been economically harmed by the enforcement of the statute. The defendant was Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce.

Question Presented

Did the provision of the statute for minority business enterprises violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power. The Court found that Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. The plurality opinion noted that Congress could have regulated the practices of contractors on federally funded projects under the Commerce Clause as well. The Court further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."

Once again, not sure how this could be considered activism. The Court plainly said that it was up to Congress. They supported a law, they didn't overturn anything.

Do you have a different view on these? If so please explain.

Originally posted by scifemme
Taking the hyperbole out however, judiciary activisim is of concern. Why don't people focus on the abortion doctors anymore? They know that the only people that can overturn Roe and Doe are the judges. I think what is being said under all the rhetoric is that jusges are indeed endangering themselves by making decisions that are moraly divisiive and that can't be checked by the other 2 branches. I am not advocating the killing of anyone, but I do see what the underlying message is- restoring checks and balances.

It is not the job of a Judge to decide what is moral or not. The judge's purpose is to interpret the law based on the evidence brought before him/her. The Schaivo case is a great example of this. The judge made the right decision- regardless of whatever religious doctrine says otherwise. If you replace all the judges are you going to hand pick who can deliver testimony? If the testimony of someone doesn't fly with the "moral" view of the judge, will that evidence just not be presented??!! That is the dangerous road we are facing.

Very good point Logans Run, that is the problem with what the republicans want right now. They would rather have a judge make decisions based on the bible, than on the constitution.

As to the "activism" charges, can anyone else bring specific examples or perhaps convince me that the above examples are "outrageous abuses of power"?

The list seems rather short, and most of them are pretty old. If this is such a problem I would like to see some recent decisions that can be described as "legislating from the bench".