Dispatches from the Creation Wars

I’ve long thought that the Constitution Party – which postures as being libertarian-minded – was quite badly named. They’re really a far right – and I mean far right – social conservative party with a very disturbing vision of what the constitution means. And here’s more proof of that. Their chairman and former Presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, is urging Bush to nominate none other than Roy Moore:

“President Bush should nominate former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to replace Sandra Day O’Connor in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus said in a statement…

Continued Phillips: “Judge Roy Moore also has a track record. He is a rock-solid defender of the right to acknowledge God, a foe of sodomy and abortion, and a critic of the ‘legal positivism’ embraced by David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer.”

Yikes.

Comments

#1 Bill
July 6, 2005

Yeah, right! Like Bush is going to listen to someone who ran against him and his father because he thinks the Bushes are liberal.

I have heard that Moore might consider running for governor of Alabama. If elected it could be his undoing because the job requires more than just religious grandstanding.
#2 afsgtsam
July 7, 2005

Bush is going to nominate soemone more moderate like Gonzales to neuter the left. He has “stolen” many of the lefts issues before and will try to do it again. The problem is no matter how much Bush tries to placate the left they will never ever like him, the democrats hate Bush and that will not change.
#3 raj
July 7, 2005

You should realize that the Constitution Party was originallly named the US Taxpayers Party. That should give you an indication of their inclination. The party is also openly conservative Christian religionist.

A bit of history and background is at http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Constitution_Party
#4 llDayo
July 7, 2005

My father-in-law and I got into a discussion on July 4th while having a cookout at their house. He said he’s tired of the Republican Party (a good start!) and the lying that Bush has done regarding the Iraq war. So, he was looking into a new political party and said he’s going to probably switch to the Constitution Party. I thought, “That sounds promising. I’ll look into and maybe visit their official website or something.” Well, one of the first things I noticed was how they believe the Constitution was founded on Christian principles. For an ugly display of this, go here: http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=205

He has talked about joining a local chapter and that they’re going to start meetings real soon. Man that guy can be one of the nicest people in the world but he sure has trouble thinking outside of a far right, conservative, Christian mindset.
#5 Ed Brayton
July 7, 2005

afsgtsam wrote:

Bush is going to nominate soemone more moderate like Gonzales to neuter the left. He has “stolen” many of the lefts issues before and will try to do it again. The problem is no matter how much Bush tries to placate the left they will never ever like him, the democrats hate Bush and that will not change.

I think you’re focused far too much on just blaming the Democrats. In our two party system, both parties do their damnedest to undermine the other when they’re in power. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they blocked 65 of Clinton’s judicial nominees. That’s what opposition parties do, and both do it with a suitcase full of deceit and hypocrisy in the process.

As far as Gonzales is concerned, I’m finding all of this hullaballoo a bit curious. I think the whole thing may well be orchestrated by the White House to position him as a moderate. The only thing that the hard right really has to go on in calling Gonzales a moderate is one single opinion while on the Texas Supreme Court where he voted to allow a teenager to use a judicial override to get an abortion. But the fact is, he really didn’t have much choice in that case. Abortion is legal, whether he wants it to be or not, and as a judge he must enforce the law as it stands. At the most, the case only proves that he is capable of applying controlling precedent and current law even if he disagrees with it (which is a good thing). You will find numerous instances of the other nominees on Bush’s short list who are appeals court judges doing the same thing, but no one on the right screams about them being too moderate.

So I’m beginning to suspect that all of this is orchestrated – the hard right screams about how unacceptable he is, the White House stands up to them and tells them to stop being so extremist, and both Gonzales and the White House are viewed as moderate. As a result, some of the opposition to Gonzales is sapped and the White House is positioned in the media to say, “Hey, we gave you a moderate minority candidate and you still don’t like it” if the Democrats put up too much of a fight.

Having said that, I think Gonzales probably is the nominee most likely to turn out to be a moderate on the court. He’s the potential nominee with the shortest track record as a jurist and virtually no record as a scholar that I am aware of. He’s a stealth candidate, much like Souter was, and therefore the most likely to either be more moderate or drift more moderate during his time on the court.
#6 Mark Paris
July 7, 2005

I would love to see droves of radical right wingers desert the republican party in favor of the constitution party, just as long as they vote a strict party line. It would help moderate the republicans’ drive towards religious fascism, and maybe the ones left could start thinking about moving the party towards its historical roots. You know, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
#7 raj
July 7, 2005

This question is totally orthogonal to anything that has been posted here, but I have been wondering. Where did the name of the web site “stcynic” come from. I can parse it “saint cynic. What was the derivation?

Thanks in advance for the explanation.

BTW, Ed, you have one of the two or three best “general purpose” webs sites on the block. I’ve recommended your site for inclusion on the “links” feature over at the “legal fiction” web site
#8 Bill Ware
July 7, 2005

raj,

I always imagined that stcynic stood for “stickit to’em cynic. Just a WAG on my part, I suppose. (LOL)
#9 Ed Brayton
July 7, 2005

raj wrote:

This question is totally orthogonal to anything that has been posted here, but I have been wondering. Where did the name of the web site “stcynic” come from. I can parse it “saint cynic. What was the derivation?

You have parsed it correctly. When I first began venturing online it was in the Compuserve Religion Forum, back in the days when you needed proprietary software to dial in to their system specifically like a BBS. So we’re talking 12 or 13 years ago. I took the username of Cynic for fairly obvious reasons, and one night in a chat someone made a sarcastic comment like, “Oh, you’re such a saint” and I changed it to StCynic to sort of go along with the joke and it stuck. I’ve been StCynic ever since. I tell people that I actually was beatified by the Church, but that two of my three miracles were card tricks.

Incidentally, I still have many friends from the old Compuserve religion forum, including a couple who have posted here. Troy Britain is one of them, as is Henry Neufeld, who posts at Panda’s Thumb. And my dear friend Andi, who for some reason does not comment here but really should because A) she’s really smart and funny and B) you guys would probably enjoy seeing her bust my chops as she usually does.
#10 raj
July 7, 2005

Thanks, Ed. I’ve followed you to Panda’s Thumb and to In The Agora. I’m not a particular fan of “general purpose” group blogs, because they can become somewhat difficult to follow. Panda’s thumb isn’t general purpose, but In The Agora is.
#11 Raging Bee
July 7, 2005

Does the Constitution Party have any relation to the Natural Law Party?
#12 raj
July 7, 2005

Raging Bee, as far as I can tell, the “Constitution Party” (formerly the US Taxpayers Party) is little more than Howard “I hate taxes, but I’m a Christian” Phillips. What one (I hate taxes) has to do with the other (I’m a Christian) I don’t know, but that seems to be the case.
#13 John
July 7, 2005

Raging Bee

I don’t see any official connection between them.

FYI

Every party you’ve ever heard of, and few you probably haven’t.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

I like the “Libertarian National Socialist Green Party”
#14 Bill
July 7, 2005

Any political party that would have R.J. Rushdoony as a convention speaker invites comparisons to the Taliban.
#15 Ed Brayton
July 7, 2005

Raging Bee wrote:

Does the Constitution Party have any relation to the Natural Law Party?

No. The Natural Law Party is actually an offshoot of the Transcendental Meditation crowd (and no, I’m not kidding). They’re quite amusing to watch though.
#16 Chris Krolczyk
July 8, 2005

Speaking of Orwellian names for political parties: everyone should keep in mind that Russian antisemitic nutcase Vladimir Zhirinovski’s party was called – of all things – the Liberal Democratic Party.

I’m sure that the similarly named parties from the UK and Japan – among others – were just as pleased as punch by the comparison.