Justice Sunday — The Sequel

It comes as something of a surprise, but the radical right’s “Justice Sunday II” was reminiscent of too many movie sequels — rehashing lines that generated applause the first time to produce more of the same. In fact, the only thing interesting about yesterday’s massive church rally in Nashville was what wasn’t said.

If you caught any of the broadcast, you saw an event that was, oddly enough, pretty boring. Tom DeLay believes federal courts are imposing a “judicial supremacy” over the country; James Dobson thinks the Supreme Court has created “an oligarchy“; Phyllis Schlafly said the idea that the courts should have the final say over the meaning of the law is a “terrible heresy“; William Donohue wants to undo Marbury v Madison; and Zell Miller doesn’t like abortion and gay people.

I hear all of this and ask, is this all they’ve got? Sure, it’s a stark reminder that top GOP officials and those who have their ear are stark raving mad, but we knew that. “Right-wing Republicans, still nuts” is not exactly an attention-grabbing headline anymore. No one said anything new yesterday — it was just the same Taliban-wing of the party spewing its usual theocratic nonsense. I’m deeply engaged in this crap, and even I found it hard to get worked up over yesterday’s palaver.

There was one thing, however, that stood out. It wasn’t what these clowns were saying; it was what they weren’t saying: all the reasons the GOP base is supposed to be thrilled about John Roberts, Jr.

As the LA Times noted, the timing of Justice Sunday II was intended to get evangelicals engaged and motivated about Roberts’ confirmation in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings, which will kick off in about three weeks.

But instead of singing Roberts’ praises, these far-right lawmakers and activists largely steered clear of Bush’s Supreme Court nominee altogether.

The Christian conservative organizers of this weekend’s “Justice Sunday” telecast once talked about using it to rally support for the president’s Supreme Court nominee.

But when the cast of influential evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics and Republican congressmen appeared behind the pulpit of the Two Rivers Baptist megachurch here on Sunday evening, most speakers mentioned the nominee, Judge John G. Roberts Jr., only in passing. Instead, they took aim mainly at the power and decisions of the Supreme Court itself.

When Dobson spoke, he told the faithful, “For now at least, [Roberts] looks good.” That’s it. From there, it was just liberals bad, courts bad, yada yada yada.

Last month, some of these same right-wing voices couldn’t have been more pleased with the president’s nominee. Now, at a rally held to generate some excitement about the future of the high court, the best Roberts can do is “for now at least, he looks good.”

When the far-right group Public Advocate withdrew its support for Roberts’ nomination last week, the group’s president told reporters, “I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do.” If yesterday’s reticence was any indication, maybe there’s something to this after all.

I can’t imagine how this event could’ve had much energy.

The Republicans control all three branches of government. There’s nothing stopping them from doing anything they damn well want to do. Which means that the fact the agenda of the religious right has not been carried out with alacrity can only mean that the GOP isn’t terribly enthusiastic. To be sure, the RR didn’t have very many tangible policy successes to trumpet at this good ol’ revival. All that’s left to do is bad-mouth the same-old demons they always bad-mouth, which must be a terrible letdown for the “faithful” after all the promises of the past election.

  • DeLay’s “Justice Sunday II” ranting about unelected, lifetime, activist judges got me thinking about the “frames” thing we’ve talked about here. I think every time we hear one of these idiots mouth that crap we should respond with something like “Yeah … unelected, lifetime judges (who aren’t inert), as it says in the US Constitution. You don’t like the US Constitution? You want mob rule insteaad? Go live in Argentina or Afghanistan or anywhere else but here, you creep.”

    Same with this mysterious “right to privacy” the extreme right (e.g., Bork) likes to harp about. Not in the Constitution, they. Oh, really? Ever hear of the 9th Amendment? “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (emphasis added). If privacy isn’t a right retained by the people, what would be? Again, right wing creeps: “You don’t like the US Constitution? Get out.”

    This isn’t their “My way or the highway” either. Just tell the wingnuts that it’s the American way or the highway.

  • I think the bottom line is that most of these people are hypocrites. Everything is bad unless it suits their purposes. If it DOES suit their purposes, then it’s good. Doesn’t matter what it is.

    So, they’re only against lifetime appointments if it’s the other side being appointed; if it’s THEIR guy/gal being appointed, then it’s, “Hallelujah!”

    If it was a Democratic administration “outing” a CIA agent, can you imagine the outcry from the right? For crying out loud, look how they acted when President Clinton got a measly BJ from an intern. They voted to impeach him. But when it’s their administration actually compromising national security and the CIA’s entire clandestine operation, the response is, “What’s the big deal?”

    Bloody hypocrites, all of them.

  • Comments are closed.