The Federal Courts

[H2O Man]

"Part of Scalia's objection to democracy, amplified a year later, was that it got in the way of an eighteenth-century interpretation of the US Constitution. Speaking at the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, he opined that as written in 1787, the Constitution reflected natural or divinely inspired law that the state was an instrument of God. 'That consensus has been upset,' he said, 'by the emergence of democracy.' He added that 'the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible.' "
--Kevin Phillips; American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; 2004; pages 107-108

As DU:GD-P draws to a close, I want to focus briefly on one of the most important reasons that we have to transition into a coordinated effort to win the fall elections on as large of a scale as possible. And that reason is to restore balance to the federal court system.

Unlike Injustice Scalia and his ilk, I believe in democracy. I know that you do, too. The Democratic Underground began as a result of Scalia & Co.'s "over-ruling" the voice of the voters in 2000 -- because of their belief that they were "divinely inspired" to trump what would have emerged from democracy: the Gore administration.

I have read a number of comments from people who describe themselves as supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton (which is highly questionable, in my opinion), who have said that the democratic party would use the US Supreme Court as a "scare tactic" to try to pressure Clinton supporters to vote for Barack Obama in the fall.

It would be a unfortunate error in thinking for anyone to believe that because John McCain has voiced some pro-choice beliefs, that he would appoint federal judges who would represent democratic views to the bench. He has made clear that if elected, he will appoint judges who hold Scalia-like views to the federal courts. A McCain presidency would result in a federal court system that would restrict individual choices in a variety of "reproductive" choices.

More, federal courts under McCain would continue the "divinely inspired" practices that would continue the assault upon the US Constitution -- especially the Bill of Rights -- in a manner that would continue the shift from a Consttutional democracy towards the aristocracy that Phillips described.

A key issue, I believe, is habeas corpus. It is impossible to have a true democracy without that Great Writ. As I noted before, the first attack on habeas corpus in modern times was accomplished by a coordinated effort between President Clinton and ultr-conservatives in Congress. The Bush-Cheney attack was only possible as a second step that further President Clinton's undermining of habeas corpus.

Barack Obama has stated that he will restore habeas corpus. The implications should be clear to every American who is concerned about the increase of domestic spying that has taken place in the past seven years, as this goes hand-in-hand with the denial of basic freedoms defined in the Constitution.

I recommend that people read (or re-read) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s 2004 book, "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy." In terms of citizen protections from the corporate destruction of the environment, I believe that the federal courts will play an essential role in the next eight years. I have seen firsthand, as a result of working for 20 years on a site the EPA defines as two SuperFund Sites, how the federal courts can deny citizens protections when they rule in favor of corporate "rights" to destroy the environment, placing profits over public safety.

The case I worked on went to federal court, twice. It was the first time the EPA's MSW policy was being challenged in court. I helped officials in the EPA and US Justice Department prepare the case. The courts ruled in favor of the two powerful defense industries. The families who live near the highly contaminated site were denied the rights that I believe the Constitution should insure. The courts ruling indicates that Scalia's "religion" favors the defense industry.

I have also had decades of experience working on Native American burial protection & repatriation and freedom of religion issues. These have, of course, at times been decided by the federal courts. I have told before about Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons telling a group of students in the 1970s that just as the system was treating Native Americans then, it would treat non-Indians in the future. He was right.

The prophet Jesus also said that what happened to the least would happen to others. It is no coincidence that his harshest teachings were directed to the self-righteous Saclias of his day. Native Americans have been denied religious freedoms for centuries. Court cases have resulted in the governments ruling that Native religions are not worthy of the same rights as more socially acceptable religions. When we read Scalia's words in the Phillips' quote, it is clear that he is intent upon the government advocating one religion -- his -- while denying others the protections from his religion that the Constitution calls for.

More, he perverts the teachings of Jesus, who was clear about the hypocrisy of the self-righteous in judging others for their personal lives. One area that I have strong disagreements with Barack Obama is his views on gay marriage. But I am confident that he will appoint federal judges who will rule correctly on these issues. It goes beyond simply having the right to a civil union. My ex-wife is a minister who marries gay and lesbian couples. The US Constitution forbids the government from denying those couples the same right to a religious ceremony, as the couples who attend Scalia's church.

Phillips' follow-up book, "American Theocracy," is the final book I will recommend in this GD-P post. The Scalia-types are pressuring John McCain to bow to their "divine" right to destroy the Bill of Rights in our culture. That's the choice that you and I are faced with this year. We can work hard to elect Obama and other democrats, though they may be imperfect. Or we can fail to exercise our democratic rights, and suffer the consequences.

[grantcart]

1. Thank you for this post and for the home work.

The Ironic Reality of this Thoughtful Post?


We currently have a President and a Presidential Candidate who would not be able to read it and understand it at any appreciable level.


We have another who could prepare an entire semester on it and write a book on it, and not simply the legal issues that you raise either.


Every election season it is always billed as the "starkest comparison" and "the most important election in our lifetime".


This time its true. Thank you for helping fill in the valuable blanks of exactly why that is true.