Who got the courtesy calls when Dubya nominated Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:
White House officials began calling close conservative allies around 7 a.m., just as they did in the hour before Mr. Bush announced his two previous [Supreme Court] nominations. Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser, reached Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, on his mobile phone in an airport… an aide to Mr. Rove, called the Rev. Jerry Falwell around the same time. [Link]
What the Southern Baptist Convention says about Hinduism — it’s a fevered, Victorian-era fantasy straight out of Temple of Doom. I hear they eat monkey brains… only the Shadow knows! *cackle*
The SBC [Southern Baptist Convention] released 30,000 copies of [a conversion guide for missionaries] just before the most important Hindu festival of 1999: the three-day celebration of Divali…
‘Hindus seek power and blessing through the worship of gods and goddesses and the demonic powers that lay behind them… Hindus lack a concept of sin or personal responsibility… the darkness in their Hindu hearts that no lamp can dispel… demonic powers lie behind Hindu gods…’ Hindus live under ‘the power of Satan…’‘Mumbai… is a city of spiritual darkness. Eight out of every 10 people are Hindu, slaves bound by fear and tradition to false gods… Satan has retained his hold on Calcutta through Kali and other gods and goddesses of Hinduism. It’s time for Christ’s salvation to come to Calcutta.
‘… more than 900 million people lost in the hopeless darkness of Hinduism… Walking through the streets of India during Divali is a sobering reminder of the power of darkness that lies over this land…’ [Link]
What Falwell says about Islam, and about 9/11 — ‘it was American women’s fault’:
[Falwell:] “I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war.” [Link][Falwell on 9/11:] ‘The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say: “You helped this happen…” ‘ [Link]
You know, politicians in developing nations are rightly criticized for courting their wingnut religious leaders. But what about when it happens in a country proud of its freedom of worship and separation of church and state?
It’s applauded as political genius.
I guess my comment would be more appropriate here. ( I am copying it from the Diwali post)
Maybe someone should send Judge Alito a Diwali gift so he can stop hating on Hindus 😉 Apparently our soon to be Supreme Court Justice believes that preventing heathen Hindoos from building their temples is always okay even if the decision to deny Hindoos their temple is arbitrary, capricious and reeks of d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n. Thankfully, the mafioso was the sole dissenter here (surprise!) and the majority did the right thing. The whole case is here. For people who care about civil rights, Judge Alito has this to say to us ‘My offer is this: nothing.’ Happpy Diwali 🙂
The ruling on this case is here
ha ha ha, bring it on, hinduism is the oldest religion and some old fart aint going to stop it!
Is this post a joke? And you make fun of me for reading comprehension…..this sor of kid’s stuff is right up there in Kos territory. Nice work.
In a 1999 New Jersey case, Alito decided in favor of two Muslim policeman who wanted to keep their beards. He also sided with a Lakota Indian in the Blackhawk vs Pennsylvania case last year (the Lakota Indian said he derived spiritual powers from bears, and that fees should be waived for keeping wildlife, basically because of his spiritual beliefs.) From Ann Althouse’s NYT op-ed.
mafiosio, AM? Nice.
Damn right Kitty … The Hindus have faced multiple invasions and they still stand strong (getting stronger).. Some sexually frustated BUDDHA can’t do shit….
And it only happens on the right, eh? I’m sure no Democratic president ever called up an extremist on the left who has ridiculous ideas about religion. Like, say a Farrakhan or Jackson, etc. So, because a Clinton calls a Jackson, who uses the term Hymie town, Democrats are anti-semitic? ‘Cause your Koskids post is exactly on the same level of logic. For shame.
First person called during a Supreme Court nomination? I think not.
Susan Sontag and Michael Moore also said 9/11 was the US’s fault: chicken’s coming home to roost. And one of those guys sat at the DNC.
And I know Susan Sontag wasn’t a guy, you know what I mean.
Let’s focus here: is it ok for the president to contact religious leaders as the first stop on political moves? In a country with separation of church and state?
Are you seriously equating a political argument (blowback) with a religious one?
No, you focus. Who says you can’t call a religious leader first stop in a secular democracy? Separation of church and state means that the state doesn’t sponsor a particular religion, not that religious people can’t band together and form a voting block like any other group in the country.
Who says you can’t call a religious leader first stop in a secular democracy?
Bush did not call up a religious leader after he made the nomination. He called up to ask the religious leader for his approval before he made the nomination. There is a difference.
mafiosio, AM? Nice.
Our soon to be Justice after losing the biggest mafia case in Justice Department history against the Lucchese family flippantly responded “you canÂ’t win them all”.
In a 1999 New Jersey case, Alito decided in favor of two Muslim policeman who wanted to keep their beards. He also sided with a Lakota Indian in the Blackhawk vs Pennsylvania case last year (the Lakota Indian said he derived spiritual powers from bears, and that fees should be waived for keeping wildlife, basically because of his spiritual beliefs.)
Yes, he seems to be a religious nut who sets up precedence which can used by the crazed right wing religious nuts. However, when the case is not about setting precedence but settling a dispute as in the temple case, he shows his true colors.
Mafiosio automatically applied to Italian-Americans may be perceived as a bigoted term, or did you not think of that?
He decided those cases on certain legal precedents; there is every evidence that he is a careful judge and a qualified one. So much so, that plenty of democrats voted to send him to the position he now occupies. Why I bother to respond to you is beyond me…..
I do. It’s wack. If you were a true strict constructionist, you’d honor the separation of church and state. It’s why the country was founded.
Irrelevant to whether the president calls them first.
I agree w/MD here, it’s not cool. Sort of like calling every desi a Thuggee.
You’re kidding right? Let me guess, when you were a kid you always coloured inside the lines…
I say go to the original text 😉
Mafiosio automatically applied to Italian-Americans may be perceived as a bigoted term… I agree w/MD here, it’s not cool. Sort of like calling every desi a Thuggee.
I called him a Mafiosio because of the Lucchese case (in the legal community there long have been rumors about this case, I am not the first one to bring it up) and not because his Italian heritage.
there is every evidence that he is a careful judge and a qualified one
I believe he is especially qualified to cause great harm to the Civil Rights Act and discrimination cases that come out of it, Federal Regulatory Laws (in fact ability of the Fed Gov to rely on the Commerce Clause to pass any laws period) Disability Rights, Seperation of State and Church, Check on Presidents War Powers and last but not the least, Privacy rights. There is enough evidence in his rulings (including some scary dissents where his colleagues have admonished him for setting standards where it would be impossible to bring forth a discrimination law suit) that Alito is a ‘movement conservative’ who will do his best to chip away at everything we have achieved since the new deal. May ‘God’ help us all.
So much so, that plenty of democrats voted to send him to the position he now occupies The Dem controlled Senate also nominated Scalia and Thomas. The fact that Dems voted for Alito does not give me any comfort.
Why I bother to respond to you is beyond me…..
Then dont respond foo’
Manish! Gahhh! Last time you wrote something about religion and the Supreme Court nominee, I was sitting in the computer lab during my speech class and responding to an onslaught of anti-missionary comments. I’m just too tired right now. No where in what was said in the excerpts does it say that Rove called them up to ask permission. And I doubt that’s really how it happend. So before we make any more comments based on that assumption- let’s make that clear. But, I do believe that the religious right made a huge influence on Bush’s decision as did other strong conservatives. I haven’t made up my mind yet- I will research this dude a little more. But from what I’ve heard so far, I’m liking him. I still don’t understand Bush’s facination with Falwell. Pentecostals like myself can’t stand the guy. I guess the Evangelical section is more diverse than I thought.
WOAH! Look at that! A paragraph already! I can’t keep doing this!
This concern over the beliefs of the Religious Right is misplaced. As others noted before, has a single Hindu is the U.S. found their religion outlawed, or been forced to attend a Christian service?
And why focus on the Southern Baptists? If they think I am going to hell, it will not really effect me.
Indeed, if the state and religions are to be kept apart at all costs, then there should be no federal holidays marking Christmas, no stamps commemerating religious holidays, and perhaps public school cafeterias need not concern themselves with different dietary restrictions.
This has little to with religion, and more to do with Bush’s politics. After all, Clinton was a Southern Baptist (Bush is a Methodist), and there was little of this paranoia about them during his administration, and no one chastised Clinton for quoting the Bible after the Oklahoma City bombing. During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton made extensive references to the Bible’s emphasis on forgiveness when speaking in public. And the left managed to stay sane in 2000 when Lieberman discussed the role his Jewish faith played in his political life.
If you don’t like the nominee, you’re better off focusing on him and his record, rather than on the religion of some third party.
MD koq gussa kyon hota hai!
Thats becomes the problem right. When this religious block becomes too large of a voting group, and you start to cater to them, and their ideologies and principles; where then will be the separation of state from church.
That’s not my argument, that’s AMfD’s.
Correct– specifically his willingness to breach the church-state barrier.
Red herring, as many dietary restrictions are about health rather than religion.
I dislike most mixing of religion and government, but Clinton didn’t call the Southern Baptist Convention first thing before announcing a Supreme Court nominee.
Occam’s razor trumps Freud. This post is about the administration.
This is the problem. It’s not “the religion of some third party.” It’s ok with me if Bush wants to be a Methodist or Clinton a Baptist, or Scalia a Catholic. I want decisions in this country to be made without the undue influence of Bush’s Methodistness or Clinton’s Baptistness and ESPCIALLY Scalia and Alito’s Catholicism at this particular juncture in time.
I want my Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as it is, not by the light of the Holy Bible or the words of the Pope. I want decisions to be made by what is best PRACTICALLY for the nation as a whole – and it worries me that the unspoken, though prima facie, assumption among so much of the Republican party is “Christianity is the one and only true religion, so its values are what is best for the nation as a whole.”
Stepping outside of one particular religious tradition and seeing what we all share in common is but one step towards figuring out exactly what IS best for the nation on a practical level.
Allowing Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives if you wish, to check each other is another step. Tilting the Supreme Court decisively towards either party or philosophy is dangerous. I would rather have a balanced court than one full of liberals OR conservatives. Both viewpoints are necessary in order to keep things in balance. Why is this so much about one side “winning” over the other? There’s a reason we have two political parties, and it’s not so one can send the other into oblivion.
It’s going to happen though. Alito will most likely be confirmed. Bush’s base likes him. And we will not ever get another pro-choice, pro-equal-rights, pro-little-guy-economically decision out of the Supremes from this particular group of judges (but we’ll get some scathing dissents). If he is confirmed, watch me be right.
It’s going to happen though. Alito will most likely be confirmed.
Yes, but the Dems will either have to filibuster him or atleast force the Reps to use the nuclear option. I want the ugliest attacks ads to tear down this man. If the Dems dont put up a fight, the base will never forgive them.
This concern over the beliefs of the Religious Right is misplaced.
It is not misplaced. Why the heck it is being brought up then ? Why the heck the Right-Wing-Nutty Senators talk about bringing “good Christian” and one with “Christian values” all the time ?
As others noted before, has a single Hindu is the U.S. found their religion outlawed, or been forced to attend a Christian service?
Try to get a permit to build a temple or a masque a 50 yards from a mega church, you will find out how sophisticated fanatical Christians have become in the art of bigotry.
And why focus on the Southern Baptists? If they think I am going to hell, it will not really effect me.
Good “rhetorical” point. They not just think that “I am going to hell”, they sing about it on my front door. But like you said its OK. SO now, can I go and tell them that Baptists are bigots and sing about it on their door steps. I should be able to….right ?
Indeed, if the state and religions are to be kept apart at all costs, then there should be no federal holidays marking Christmas, no stamps commemerating religious holidays, and perhaps public school cafeterias need not concern themselves with different dietary restrictions.
So you agree that religion should not play a part in this debate right ? I can do away with Christmas Day, Easter Monday, Good Friday …etc. I donÂ’t get the Diwali day off anyways so I donÂ’t care. 😀 This has little to with religion, and more to do with Bush’s politics.
His politics is entangled with his religion, and he is never shy about showing it off.
After all, Clinton was a Southern Baptist (Bush is a Methodist), and there was little of this paranoia about them during his administration, and no one chastised Clinton for quoting the Bible after the Oklahoma City bombing. During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton made extensive references to the Bible’s emphasis on forgiveness when speaking in public. And the left managed to stay sane in 2000 when Lieberman discussed the role his Jewish faith played in his political life.
So lets condemn all these to hell. I am with you on that. 😀
If you don’t like the nominee, you’re better off focusing on him and his record, rather than on the religion of some third party.
See previous posts. Someone has already posted a link to a case.
Manish,
What barrier was breached? He made a phone call – he did not nominate his pastor, nor any church official. What policy has been changed? He is conferring with interest groups the support him, who happen to be of a certain denomination. There is nothing to indicate that these supporters held some kind of veto over his choice.
Think back to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Despite her many years of working with the far-left ACLU (IMO), she was confirmed 96-3, since traditionally the Senate understood that however they might disagree with a nominees politics, what matters more is a nominees credentials, and that the President normally enjoys great leeway in selecting such nominees.
A President is under no obligation to have a Supreme Court resemble the politial division of the nation. If there were, there would be fewer liberals on the SC than there are now, since fewer and fewer Americans describe themselves as such.
I want the ugliest attacks ads to tear down this man.
This is one of the things I abhor most about American politics… its tendency to descend into the ad hominem. Some say this is the greatest country on earth, and still we let logical fallacies determine our votes. And it works – which is the saddest part of it.
I still have to be the staunch idealist (though be assured that flakes off more and more year by year) and insist that we make it about the issues, the court cases, the decisions already made, than the man himself. And yeah, we’ll probably lose by taking the high road…. but again we come back to the “winning and losing” bit…. sigh. it’s all one big frustrating circle.
If we remember anything from the Borking of Bork, its that to bring down a Republican Supreme Court nominee, we have to attack the person and make him look crazed and uber conservative who is outside the mainstream. An average American works hard all day and does not have the time to worry about the expansive or narrow reading of the Commerce Clause and how that will affect his life. This is hardball politics.
Just like everything else in politics, the pendulum will swing. I just hope it swings to a more moderate position, instead of swinging from solid right to solid left. When it does, and some justices move on, hopefully it moves back into a moderate position. OR one of these guys has a change of heart and becomes a swing voter (Like O’Conner)
The Clinton years were an example in all branches of govt checking each other. Presidency was Democratic, Congress was republican, and the Court was evenly balanced. That is why things worked well, no one group or party had sweeping control.
The next president will almost be Democratic by default. A moderate Republican would be good, too, but the over zealous ‘religious’ base will over play their hand.
Loyalty to the party on both ends has superceded loyalty the nation and constitution. Time is ripe for a “Bull Moose” type. Only time will tell though, if a leader, not a party line dancing politican steps up to the plate.
Alito and his hostility to the Civil Rights Act :
An average American works hard all day and does not have the time to worry about the expansive or narrow reading of the Commerce Clause and how that will affect his life. This is hardball politics.
I know this on an intellectual level. I still don’t like it. This is why I prefer sparkly things to politics. If mudslinging must occur, I guess it must. But we shouldn’t ignore the issues solely for the “Alito eats babies” ad hominem dumbing down for the majority population. It makes us more and more stupid as time goes on. If we must play hardball, let’s serve a side of Reasons Why We Should Not Have A One-Sided Court along with the Don’t Confirm The Scary Man.
That doesn’t sound very democratic to me. Ends do not justify the means.
Did I come to the correct website? this is all strange to me……I mean, if I want politics, I could just go to one of political blogs, right?
I ain’t a foo’, anymore than you are AM! (PS, why the dropping of the last letter in hip-hop slang? It took me ages to figure out what coo’ meant. I’m gonna start my next lecture with,” what’s crackalackin? Do you thing the students will laugh at me?)
Manish, all he did was make a phone call and it’s been spun in all sorts of directions, without any proof. And the founders didn’t mean religion should have no part of public life; they only meant the government should support one over the other. And Falwell is a dummy. So? I don’t think the President is as close to him as some like to make out. Reporters are generally dullards in this regard.
Plenty of left/democract politicians politick at predominantly black Baptist churches. Do you think those Southern Baptists are so different in belief? Why not posts on those connections? I think you might find an interesting thing or two. And spare me the, “oh, but they don’t get called first, nonsense.” That would be sophistry.
Freudian slip! Shouldn’t support one religion over the other…..
Oh, who am I kidding. The religion of MD worship should prevail, secularites!
I shall only worship MD if worship consists of people sitting around and sharring ek cup of communal chai whilst discussing politics without resorting to name-calling, Ann Coulter/Michael Moore quotations or Godwin’s Law.
Otherwise it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster for me. Yes, I’m fickle like that. 😉
The left never applied the religious test to jewish nominees to the Supreme Court. They never came forward to ask whether the jewish faith would influence Supreme court decisions of Ginsburg and Breyer.
not all religious leaders are created equal. on the razibo-meter, where falwell would be “nuts,” rick land is only “mildly nuts.” but, on the nut-conference-call roster of american presidents, bush has taken it toward the nutty side of the graph. aside from the early period of the nation (jefferson wasn’t a big fan of the ministerial profession) most presidents have cultivated relations with powerful religions figures. but prior to the 1960s there was an established center of gravity. today, the distribution is flatter, and a president, whether on the left or right, can’t help offending people because consultation with one figure excludes others.
Indeed,I got kicked off of DemocraticUnderground.Com for making very mild Pro-Israel/Pro-Peace posts.
Democrats do seem to have become Anti-Semitic and I have wasted my last vote for Brad Carson and will vote Republican at the next opportunity.
Any Jew who votes Democrat hates Israel and an Jew who hates Israel isn’t really a Jew at all and should have died in the Shoah.