You’ll never guess who the White House is soliciting for Supreme Court advice

We learned in May that the White House, two months before there was even a vacancy on the Supreme Court, contacted the Christian Legal Society to see who the far right would like to see on the highest court in the land.

But now that there’s an actual vacancy, and the Bush gang is putting together a short list, the advice process is getting more serious, as evidenced by Senate leaders meeting with the president this week to discuss the potential candidates and political expectations.

Asked about the process, Bush said on Wednesday that “the American people can rest assured that I understand the seriousness of this responsibility, and that I will name somebody who will bring dignity to the Court.” That’s a little hard to believe that when the White House is reaching out to Jerry Falwell for input.

It is not just Democrats that the White House is seeking out for ideas. The Bush administration has also been consulting with its political allies outside the Congress.

“Someone from the White House called me yesterday, asking for any input I might have,” said the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority and chancellor of Liberty University in Virginia.

In this case, Falwell didn’t have much in the way of advice — he said he would simply trust Bush and pray for him — but the fact that he was sought out for guidance speaks volumes about what kind of White House we’re dealing with.

As my friends at AU noted:

Imagine the howls of indignation and outrage from America’s right-wing punditry if Sen. John Kerry had been elected and was now reaching out to Michael Moore for “input” on picking a Supreme Court justice.

Quite right. If Kerry solicited Supreme Court advice from Moore, we’d hear cries that Dems are “out of touch” and overly influenced by “liberal Hollywood elite.” Fundarising letters would be churned out; Fox News would do specials about the revelation; and members of Congress would be tripping over each other to denounce Kerry’s poor judgment. And yet here we have the Bush White House reaching out to a disgraced TV preacher, asking him for suggestions to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

In fact, the Moore-Falwell analogy isn’t equivalent — on his worst day Michael Moore is meek and modest compared to Falwell.

We are, after all, talking about one of the nation’s most despicable anti-American demagogues, attacking anyone not like himself, and even blaming Americans for 9/11 just 48 hours after the attacks.

I mean, really. When looking for suggestions about a high court nominee, the Bush White House turned to a man who issued a “parental alert” warning that Tinky Winky might be gay and part of the “homosexual agenda.”

What’s more, there’s no real outrage about the White House reaching out to Falwell on this. Since it was mentioned in the New York Times, few have even raised an eyebrow.

No one finds this strange because it’s expected that top White House officials maintain an ongoing dialog with lowlifes like Falwell. Considering his record of hate and division, reasonable people and polite society should make him a pariah. Instead, the White House is soliciting advice from him about the future of the federal judiciary.

The mind reels.

The mind reels indeed. Why aren’t some centrist Dems making a huge issue out of this? All they have to do is show clips of Falwell blaming America for 9/11 and then ask “why is President Bush asking this man for advice on a Supreme Court nominee? The United States Constitution specifically says that the President nominates Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not from an unelected extremist who blames American’s for the 9/11 tragedy.”

why, oh why, is this not happening?

  • I thought that, since Bush is a lame duck now, there might be a glimmer of hope that he might nominate a moderate, but I don’t really believe that’s going to happen now. He was never a uniter before, he doesn’t demonstrate any inclination to be one now.

  • Are you friends with Jeremy Leaming or someone else over at AU?

    If you’re friends with Jeremy, it’s a small world. I was at one time, although we lost touch over the years. Same story for at least 2 of the other demagogue bloggers.

  • This may just be “window dressing” to keep stringing along the evangelicals. To them, it’s time for Bush to fish or cut bait. They want a SCOTUS justice who will help overturn Roe, and they want it now. But the mainstream public is not in agreement. Which way will Bush go on this? Whichever way will help the R’s stay in power.

  • This may just be “window dressing” to keep stringing along the evangelicals.

    Probably true, but the point is that there is no backlash, no outrage. And we can’t blame the American People, either, since most “outrage� is really the result of prodding and manipulation. The real question is when is the Democratic leadership going to wake up and take advantage of these opportunities.

  • You’re right, of course. I wandered off-topic. If the Dems would make some noise about this, it might pique the interest of more moderate voters. Maybe if enough of us email the DNC, write letters to the editor, raise the issue on other websites, we could get some backlash started

  • What other religious leader’s ring will the White House kiss in this process? The Pope? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Or, is there now an “official” US religion represented by Falwell and his ilk?

    Time to drive the wedge … If you’re not a Falwell, Robertson or Focus on the Family follower, your religious beliefs are now out of the mainstream. So you Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, etc. can just go take a hike,

  • Just to show how far we’ve traveled in this handbasket, here are a few quotes from that bleeding heart liberal, Barry Goldwater, who is surely turning in his grave:

    I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country. — Interview by The Advocate

    Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass. — Response to Jerry Falwell stating he was concerned that Sandra Day O’Connor might be moderate on abortion and other social issues, 1981.

    A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. — Interview to the Los Angeles Times, 1994

    However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” — From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

  • Hey now, don’t be putting Michael Moore in the same sentence with Jerry Falwell. I really like Michael Moore. Some may find his performance art of shame approach to activism not their style, but I remember him shaming an HMO into giving a guy a pancreas transplant after staging a wake at their corporate offices.

    Anyway, yes, it’s revelatory that Fallwell gets consulted, window-dressing or not.

  • Yes, these are great. How can we authenticate
    them? I’d like to add them to my collection, but
    I have a strict rule that I have to verify anything
    that I use.

    Thanks. These are great, and surprising.

  • These are great, and surprising.

    They are great, but should not be that surprising. Goldwater is a true conservative and much more libertarian than most would give him credit for. Whether that is good or bad is left to the reader to decide.

  • You are right. Should not be surprising. That’s
    my failing. Prejudice. Knowing that he was
    “conservative,” I presumed he fit into a
    preconceived mold. It wasn’t until a couple of
    years ago when a friend awakened me about
    Barry Goldwater and his being a “true” conservative, and something of a libertarian. But I still
    hadn’t realized to what extent. Especially on
    religion.

    Can the Repigs admit that they are wrong? Score
    one for our side.

  • Yes, these are great. How can we authenticate
    them? I’d like to add them to my collection, but
    I have a strict rule that I have to verify anything
    that I use.

    Well, I provided the only authentication I know. Certainly the big quote from the Congressional Record would be easy to look up. I got them off a site all about Goldwater, but I don’t recall exactly where. One site elaborated a bit on the kick in the ass quote:

    “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” [Response to an inaccurate quote of Moral Majority head Jerry Falwell, that every good Christian should be concerned about the Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor’s stand on abortion, 1981]

    There are lots of sites about Goldwater, I believe that you could google a phrase out of each of the quotes and verify them to your satisfaction. Goldwater was basically a fairly unsophisticated libertarian, and held theocrats (and plenty of other people) in disdain. And he didn’t keep his tongue in his pocket (old French-Canadian expression).

  • Comments are closed.