Monday, August 15, 2005

“Justice Sunday II” and Other Oxymorons

See what happens when I leave the country for just a few days? The wingnuts go batshit crazy again.

Prominent conservative political and religious leaders called Sunday night for Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees who will vote to end the constitutional right to abortion, against recognition of same-sex marriage and for fewer restrictions on religious expression in public places.

The Supreme Court has sanctioned “the right to kill unborn children” and opened the door to legalized “homosexual sodomy,” declared Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which co-sponsored “Justice Sunday II.”


Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as “a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it.”

Actually, Mr. Bork, the Constitution defined homosexuality as a right when the Constitution defined what a U.S. citizen is because being gay is part of being a person. (Wow, it’s a good thing that man did not make it onto the Court.)

It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called “conservatives” think that they’re both entitled to rule the world and whine about being the victim if they can’t have everything exactly the way they see it through their perverted lens of theology, capitalism-on-crack, and fear-mongering.

The purpose of Justice Sunday is to “help Christians who care about judicial activism to better understand what judges who legislate from the bench have done to the country,” Perkins said. The case against judicial activism is “a very easy case to make,” requiring only the citing of court rulings against school prayer and liberalizing the treatment of gays and the abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.

I don’t hear them whining and complaining about judicial activism when it plays into their hands(vis. Bush v. Gore). And who do they go running to when they feel as if they have been slighted? The courts, of course, hoping to find an “activist judge” who will interpret, for example, the First Amendment as applying only to the federal government and not the states (as Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested), or help them whittle away at the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments while not allowing them to touch one word of the Second. Someone really needs to sit them down and explain to them the concept of unintentional irony — or call them on their blatant hypocrisy.

So the next time someone on the right cites the rally for the Voting Rights Act in Atlanta last week as a “campaign of fear and hate,” we can thank their little friends in Nashville for providing us with a very good example of just exactly what “fear” and “hate” really is all about.