In a heated exchange with the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder stood by his decision to jeopardize–not only New York City, but 200 years of American tradition—by launching the trial of the century against 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists in the Big Apple.   Holder insists that New York is the best “venue to obtain justice,” but as Senators on both sides of the aisle argued, prosecuting terrorists minutes from the graveyard they dug for 3,000 innocent U.S. victims is “dangerous,” “misguided,” and “unnecessary.”  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was the most visibly upset.  “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General…bad history.”  Rather than leave the terrorists’ fate to a military tribunal, Holder is rolling the dice with a jury of civilians who–with a single “not guilty” verdict–could exonerate men who committed an act of war against our nation.  Essentially, the decision boils down to a global PR stunt to showcase America’s fairness.  It’s more than a little ironic, then, that both Holder and President Obama have already determined the outcome.  “Failure is not an option,” Holder said.  If that’s the case, why bother with a trial that endangers the city, shows disdain for our military, prolongs the process, and wastes millions of taxpayer dollars ($75 million a year for security alone)?  This entire charade besmirches the memory of every 9-11 victim and family–and, more than that, it disrespects every soldier, living and dead, who put on a uniform to fight in the war these villains started.

Comments: 5 |

This from an Associated Press story about California’s defense of Prop 8:

The governor and attorney general, who are supposed to defend state laws, submitted separate but similar filings Friday saying they would leave it to the conservative legal group the Alliance Defense Fund to take the lead in defending California’s gay marriage ban.”

How completely revolting.  The people of the State of California pass an amendment to the State Constitution that is upheld by the State Supreme Court and neither the attorney general nor the governor will defend the amendment.

The governor and the attorney general should be impeached — or recalled.  Whether you love or loathe Proposition 8, it should be clear that executive branch of the California should defend the State’s constitution in court.  To refuse to do so constitutes complete lawlessness.

Perhaps, some legislator can attempt to appropriate funds for Alliance Defend Fund’s legal efforts.  It only seems fair that ADF should be reimbursed for doing the government’s work.

Furthermroe, the governor and attorney general should save everyone some time and let the State know which laws they find it PC to defend.  This might be a useful flash page to set up on the AG’s website.

Comments: 6 |

Nineteen years on the U.S. Supreme Court and David Souter retires like Rodney Dangerfield: He gets no respect. When the liberal press does praise him, it’s for his logic. Really? Let’s parse the premier sample of his logic. He’s credited with the co-authorship of what has been termed the “Mystery of Life” passage in the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Justice Scalia has made wicked sport of this passage. “Ah, the sweet mystery of life passage…” he says–and then he pounces: “…the passage that ate the rule of law.” Ate it, the co-authors-Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy–did indeed.

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Say what you will about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, her personal story is a compelling one.  From the sickly daughter of a widow in the South Bronx projects to the Pyne Prize at Princeton, the Yale Law School, and almost two decades as a federal judge is a remarkable journey.  Yet, one should ask how much of Judge Sotomayor’s success “against-the-odds” came from her high-quality preparation at in the Catholic school system.  Would her story have turned out differently had she attended a soon-to-be-blighted South Bronx public high school rather than the rigorous Cardinal Spellman?

That said, how many future Sonia Sotomayors are among the 1,715 DC students currently enrolled in private and parochial schools through the DC Opportunity Scholarship voucher program?  How many will still be given the same chance to excel once the program is terminated in 2010?  If President Obama is serious about the importance of Judge Sotomayor’s biography, he should work even harder to make sure that DC children from similar backgrounds can have the same opportunities.

Comments: 1 |

Here is Tony Perkins’ statement on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayer. Her record makes one wonder… is she a legislator or a jurist?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 26, 2009 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS

Sotomayor: A Policy Maker or a Jurist?

Washington, D.C. – This morning President Obama announced his nominee to the nation’s highest court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

“President Obama has chosen a nominee with a compelling personal story over a judicial pick with a solid constitutional judicial philosophy. A compelling personal story is no substitute for allegiance to the Constitution and its sound application to public life.

“Judge Sotomayor’s failure to premise her decisions on the text of the Constitution has resulted in an extremely high rate of reversal before the high court to which she has been nominated.

“With that fact in mind Judge Sotomayor appears to subscribe to a very liberal judicial philosophy that considers it appropriate for judges to impose their personal views from the bench. President Obama promised us a jurist committed to the ‘rule of law,’ but, instead, he appears to have nominated a legislator to the Supreme Court.

“For example, in 2001 when delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California-Berkeley Law School, Sotomayor stated: ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

“Needless to say, that statement is troubling – if not offensive – on many levels. As the distinguished legal reporter Stuart Taylor of the National Journal observed about that speech and of Sotomayor, ‘her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.’

“In a 2005 panel discussion at the Duke University Law School that can be seen on YouTube and cable news channels, the judge stated that the U.S. Court of Appeals is ‘where policy is made.’

“With all due respect to Judge Sotomayor, our constitution states otherwise and public surveys indicate that the American public understands this constitutional principle and want judges who interpret the law and do not act as life-tenured judicially empowered social workers.

“The Family Research Council expects the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate to fully examine and publicly present an accurate picture of Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy to the American public before they vote on her nomination.”

-30-

Comments: 1 |

Pro-homosexual activist groups like Lambda Legal began pressing President Obama, even before he was inaugurated, to appoint homosexuals as federal judges, and now that there is a Supreme Court vacancy, the possibility of the first “openly gay or lesbian” Supreme Court justice is being discussed in the media and (intensely) in the blogosphere.

Comments by Sen. Jeff Sessions, by a spokesman for Focus on the Family, and by me, suggesting that a history of same-sex attractions would not necessarily, automatically, and a priori disqualify a candidate for the court led a blogger for Politico to ask, “Is [the] right softening on gay judges?”

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

One thing can be said for President Obama is that he doesn’t sneak up on his targets. And another thing that can be said for this liberal administration is that it is not in the least embarrassed about its inclinations. To buy into this left-of-center government is to have gotten what one bargained for. Yesterday Obama made it clear that he wants to see retiring Justice David Souter (he who ignored the erstwhile tradition of justices allowing a president of the party that appointed him to nominate his successor) replaced by October – and by an individual who has “empathy” and is “about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” These are indeed fine characteristics, but they are finest in legislators and not in judges, and in judges they are finer in trial judges than in appellate and Supreme Court judges whose “empathy” may or may not be a reliable yardstick of, well – quaint concept – justice or due process.

President Obama also suggested that some (unspecified) Americans need Supreme Court judges who will use their empathy to assure that they feel “welcome in their own nation.” Is Obama referring to judges who will enforce duly enacted civil rights laws? To homosexual couples desiring to “marry” and have the U.S. Constitution traduced to their cause? To Mormons and Christians who are being assaulted in their churches or on the street for their participation in our democracy? To legal immigrants? Illegal immigrants?

In the realm of feeling, any answer is possible. But in the realm of leftwing jurisprudence, only one answer to each of these questions is likely. The empathy that matters is in the eye of the office-holder.

Comments: - |

After seven years of working on the issue of homosexuality at the Family Research Council, I think I have a pretty good sense of the arguments that pro-homosexual activists use in support of their agenda, such as affirmation of homosexual parents and same-sex “marriage.” Even when those arguments are made well, they are unconvincing-but when they are made poorly, it just leaves me shaking my head.

One example of this phenomenon-bad arguments made badly-got a lot of attention recently. That was the Newsweek cover story on “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” penned by the magazine’s religion editor Lisa Miller. It was so poorly researched and poorly reasoned that Miller should lose her job for it-not because she is in error, but because she is incompetent. Some political writer posting on a blog might get away with the kind of sloppiness Miller showed-but a “religion editor” writing a cover story should not be allowed to. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and I wrote in detail about the Newsweek story on December 9.

Continue reading »

|

In a case that resembled a mix between a Tom Clancy novel and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Navy can use its active sonar when conducting drills and fleet operations off the California coast.  Environmental groups had argued that active sonar pinging could be harmful to marine mammals, and thus ought not to be permitted.  The Navy countered that such fleet operations are necessary to keep our forces up to snuff in their sub-hunting abilities in the event of a naval war. 

The short of it is that an environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, sued the Navy arguing that they failed to issue an environmental impact report for their exercises in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  A district court judge saw things the same way, and the Navy agreed to issue the report, but chafed at the sonar-use restrictions placed upon them by the court.  President Bush stepped in, directing that the Navy be exempt in this case from the NEPA because these sub-hunting exercises are necessary for national security in time of war.  Unsurprisingly, the liberal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the lower ruling, resulting in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, which had a comfortable 6-3 margin.

Some readers might recognize this case from the Court Jesters segment at our Values Voters Summit back in September.  (Phyllis Schlafly wrote a poem about it.)  It’s very refreshing to see that-at least for now-we have a Supreme Court willing to correct the silliness of activist judges.

Comments: 2 |

Via NRO I see that Ezra Levant, a Canadian magazine publisher, has been acquitted by the kangaroo Human Rights Tribunal that had been investigating him.  His account of the acquittal-and further denunciations of his inquisitors is here.  I once heard Levant speak here in Washington and he was just as full of justified indignation then as he seems to be now.  In Canada these tribunals have been used by radical Muslims to silence critics of Islam and by homosexual activists to silence religious speech they find offensive.

On the Islamic side, the experiences of people like Levant are dangerously close to the experiences of those who live in Muslim countries and have to face “blasphemy laws.”  These blasphemy laws are a growing problem in many countries, since they are often used to repress religious minorities and to silence political opponents.  They also are part-and-parcel of a growing problem at the international level, namely the ten-year effort to establish “defamation of religion” as a prohibited action by customary international law.  In other words it would be a blasphemy law as an international norm.  (The Becket Fund has been watching this issue carefully, especially as it would affect established religious liberty.)

On the Christian side, the Canadian tribunals might be a forerunner of what we might see in the United States with expanded hate-crimes laws and same-sex marriage.  As Levant mentions in his piece, one Canadian man of the cloth has already been forbidden to discuss certain tenets of his faith.  In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was also brought up on charges for denouncing homosexuality (see our brief in the case here).  At least in Green’s case, however, he was tried in standard courts, and acquitted.  As Levant points out, these tribunals are far murkier and less accountable for their actions.  (“The process is the punishment,” I heard him say.)  Their slow importation into the United States poses a serious threat to religious liberty, as we are already learning in places like New Mexico.

So congratulations to Ezra Levant, but we should pay close attention to his story, lest it just be a prologue for similar petty tyranny here in the United States.

|

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that The Freedom From Religion Foundation had no legal standing to sue the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for incorporating chaplain work into its veteran health care. What does this have to do with Gramshi, the Italian genius of soft communism?

To have the federal government expand its reach into virtually every corner of life (family, school, health, the economy) and simultaneously to push for a radical “wall of separation of church and state” is to ban religion from life. It is the perfect scenario for a slow but Sherman-like “march through the institutions” as Gramsci envisioned.

As Mapping America shows, the practice of religion is integral to superior outcomes in most dimensions of life, and medicine is no exception as reviews of the literature make clear.

The plaintiff in a case against Veterans Affairs for their support of chaplains’ work with ill patients, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, clearly falls among the ranks of those dedicated to a Gramsciite deconstruction of American society, not a building up of her strengths nor even of the care of her sick soldiers.

|

A week ago, July 17th marked the 365th day that Chief Judge Robert Conrad has been nominated for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and has not had a hearing in the Senate. That is one year, without the basic courtesy of Senate Democrats telling him to his face why they do not want him on court. It is also one year in which the 4th Circuit has languished, short-handed, with over a quarter of its seats vacant. A recent hearing in the Senate, convened by Sen. Alexander of Tennessee, brought a distinguished panel of witnesses to show why this is unfair to Judge Conrad and the American people.

Judge Conrad is eminently qualified to sit on the 4th Circuit. In fact, as recently as 2006 the Senate deemed him qualified to head the Federal Western District Court of the North Carolina, and a year before that appointed him to that court without opposition. As the representative of the North Carolina Bar Association told the Senate panel, Conrad is a superb lawyer who deserves to be put on the court, not left in judicial limbo. (He also noted that North Carolina, the most populous state in the 4th Circuit, has only one judge on the court–a misrepresentation that Judge Conrad’s appointment would help to remedy.)

Perhaps the worst part about what is going on is the dishonesty of it all. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has already unfairly smeared Judge Conrad by wantonly mischaracterizing his religious beliefs. Now he has taken refuge behind the so-called “Thurmond Rule” in holding up the nomination of Conrad and others like him. Leahy alleges that Republicans, led by deceased Sen. Strom Thurmond in 1980, purposefully obstructed the nominations of President Carter’s federal judges since it was an election year, so, in the words of Leahy, they might “remain vacant in order to be filled with the nominations of the next president.” The Congressional Research Service debunked that claim. In fact, in September of 1980 the Senate confirmed 12 judicial nominations. The Senate even confirmed Stephen Breyer (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) to the 1st Circuit after Reagan’s election. All in all, of the 14 nominations pending in 1980 12 received hearings, 10 were reported, and 10 were confirmed–71.4%. Compare that to the 35% treatment Bush has received.

Sen. Leahy should be honest about the Thurmond Rule, and follow Sen. Thurmond’s example by holding hearings on 8 more judges–starting with Robert Conrad.

Comments: 1 |

They finally got one right!  After two of the worst, most politically motivated decisions in history, the California Supreme Court finally issued a rational decision. The Court threw out a challenge to this fall’s ballot initiative seeking to enshrine traditional marriage in the California constitution.  The challenge was the latest attempt by social leftists to prevent the people of California from deciding an absolutely fundamental issue – the definition of marriage.  Of course, the traditional definition of one man and one woman was thrown into dispute because the same California Supreme Court held that “limiting” marriage to one man and one woman was discriminatory against homosexuals who wished to marry one another.  They then followed that up by what might be the most undemocratic action of all: refusing to “stay” the legal effect of their decision until the people of California could decide the issue in the fall.

Apparently, the chief justice and others are convening meetings to, as they call, it “preserve impartial courts in California.”  It is hard not to laugh.  Exactly what is “impartial” about outlawing marriage as an “irrational” institution?  Or about refusing to stay that decision until the people can vote?

Comments: 1 |

Remember Gonzales v. Carhart? That’s the Supreme Court decision from last year that upheld the Congressional ban on partial birth abortion. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and lawyers tied themselves up in knots trying to interpret it. Most agree it was a narrow victory for the pro-life cause, but it was a victory. That can be seen in last Friday’s decision by the 8th Circuit to allow a South Dakota abortion law to go into effect, a case in which FRC filed a friend of the court brief.

Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart, such laws were routinely struck down before they ever came into binding, legal force. Kennedy specifically noted, however, that this approach (another of the distortions abortion causes to the law) would no longer be followed. If someone wanted to challenge a law as it was applied to them, they could, and the court would decide whether specific provisions of that law, rather than the entire law, violated the Constitution. The 8th Circuit applied that logic to a challenge to South Dakota’s law, and allowed the law to go into effect.

The law merely provides that women seeking an abortion should be given complete information about the risks involved, etc, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry wanted to stop it at any cost, as usual, regardless of the fact women deserve to receive such information. However, the 8th Circuit rejected their old “business as ususal” approach to litigation concerning abortion and replaced it with some common sense.

A new day is dawning in abortion litigation.

Comments: 2 |

On the same day that Justice Kennedy ruled that “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill into law authorizing the castration of child rapists.  Certain sections of the comentariat-up to and including Fox News-have ridiculed the measure.

Jindal’s law replacing execution with castration, however, is not without precedent.  When William of Normandy conquered Anglo-Saxon England in 1066 he abolished the death penalty at the urging of the Roman Catholic Church-under whose banner he had won the Battle of Hastings.  Nonetheless, a punishment was necessary for capital crimes, so in his Coronation Charter King William said, “I also forbid that anyone shall be slain or hanged for any fault, but let his eyes be put out and let him be castrated…” Justice Kennedy, having followed the inclinations of Bishop Odo, finds himself faced with Bobby Jindal deploying edicts suited to King William.  Plus ça change…

This is further evidence that when Kennedy references any sort of “evolving standards of decency” his referent is likely a fiction, and he is merely citing his own preferences and proclivities.

Comments: 1 |

Jury selection in the high-profile child pornography trial of rapper R. Kelly begins today in Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Kelly has pleaded not guilty to having videotaped himself having sex with a minor. Cook County prosecutors have doggedly pursued this case in order to protect children, arrest the degradation of women and establish community values of decency.

We can only hope and pray that the old comedic line “don’t believe your lying eyes” does not prevail.

Comments: 1 |

After what seems like a battle without end, Judge Leslie Southwick has now been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 59-38 vote.

Here is FRC’s press release on Judge Southwick’s nomination:

FRC Praises Confirmation of Judge Southwick

October 24, 2007 – Wednesday

Washington, D.C. – Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, made the following comments following Senate confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

“We are pleased that Judge Leslie Southwick, a veteran of the Iraq war with 11 years of judicial experience, can finally move forward after struggling for a simple up-or-down vote. However, the unconstitutional use of judicial filibusters continues as other well-qualified judicial nominees are vilified and blocked by Senate leadership and their liberal allies. I urge the Senate to end the backlog of judicial nominations and allow a fair up-or-down vote for each nominee.

“I thank President Bush and Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Trent Lott (R-MS), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) for their hard work to overcome stalling tactics and confirm this highly-qualified nominee to the bench.”

Comments: 3 |

The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn’t yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:

Here’s the statistical breakdown:

Now that you’ve got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.

Comments: 44 |

America’s courts keep getting curiouser and curiouser:

LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) — A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said he sued God last week to make a point about frivolous lawsuits.

One of two court filings from “God” came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

“This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!” Friend said.

Frankly, I don’t see how The Onion can compete with the “real” news these days…

Comments: 9 |

Back in July, FRC’s Washington Update took notice of an Aurora, Illinois Planned Parenthood Clinic which surreptitiously began construction disguised as the “Gemini Health Center,” only to let community residents (and construction workers) know that it was really a new location of America’s largest abortion provider.

CNS News is now reporting that the clinic’s opening (for now, at least) has been blocked:

(CNSNews.com) – A federal judge has at least temporarily prevented the nation’s biggest abortion provider from opening a new $7.5 million clinic in Aurora, Ill., while the city government investigates charges that Planned Parenthood used secrecy and fraud to obtain permission to build the 22,000-square-foot facility.

U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle, Sr., on Monday gave Aurora officials 24 hours to file a response to a request from Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area (PPCA) for an injunction that would have forced the city to allow the new building to open on Tuesday as planned.

A hearing is set for Thursday that awaits Planned Parenthood’s response.

Comments: 6 |