Joseph Farah is always good for a laugh or two, and this morning's ridiculous screed is no exception. The column is titled Republican Judges Killed Terri, and he points to conservative judges like William Pryor who "ignored the will of the people and the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States." There's just one little problem with that: the "will of the people" was squarely against Congress and the President on this one. Even a majority of Tom DeLay's conservative district believed that they should have stayed out of it and that their involvement was politically motivated and insincere. Even a majority of Republicans around the country thought they should have stayed out of it. So this empty invocation of the "will of the people" is highly dishonest. The rest of his column is downright scary:
All six judges nominated by President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, including William Pryor - who was recess-appointed just last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster - voted not to save Terri's life.All six!
This fact was brought to my attention by Denver radio talk-show host Bob Enyart, who is urging those who care about life in this country to reconsider their strategy of electing Republican politicians to appoint them.
Now, most of you probably don't know who Bob Enyart is. He's a far (and I mean far) right talk show host who used to have his own TV show syndicated on Christian TV stations around the country. Back in those days, I had a bit of fun with Enyart, calling in to his show to expose his ignorance on many subjects. He's a young earth creationist who once told me during a call on his show that Stephen Jay Gould had admitted that Archaeopteryx was not an intermediate form. When I offered to bet him $1000 on that, he changed the subject. This guy is a major league looney, so it's hardly surprising that he and Farah are pals. Two peas in an idiotic pod.
Let's recall why President Bush was in such a hurry to appoint Pryor in the first place.He had done the president's dirty work in removing Judge Roy Moore from his lawful seat as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments monument.
It was Pryor who upheld U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument or remove Moore from his elected office. In what can only be viewed as a reward - a quid pro quo - Pryor, unlike many other far more qualified Bush nominees to the federal bench, was promoted to the 11th Circuit.
Folks, if William Pryor isn't conservative enough for you, you've gone over the edge and fallen off into wingnut land. Pryor supported Judge Moore's monument and supports anti-sodomy laws and a litany of other conservative policies. He just wasn't willing to break the law and refuse to follow a Federal court order, and for that outrageous sin, he is deemed just not quite nutty enough for this bunch of whackos. If Pryor and Judge Birch (and don't forget Scalia, the Supreme Court refused to take the case five times and given Scalia's opinion in the Cruzan case, he was almost certainly among those refusing to take it) aren't conservative enough for you, you're entering a category previously reserved only for the likes of Adolf Hitler and Lyndon Larouche.
- Log in to post comments
If i remember correctly Enyart advocates (or has advocated) the death penalty for 'sodomites'.
You remember correctly. He's a true nutball.
Ed: is there a Lifetime Achievement version of the O'Brien Award?
If not, you should consider it. Farah would be a shoe-in on the first ballot.
I'm not sure what part of Scalia's opinion in Cruzan indicates to you that he voted not to hear the case. (Got a cite for the "5 times" claim?) I had an extensive argument on my blog (too hard to give the link with the Treo, but search my blog for schiavo and sunstein and you'll find it) arguing that the Cruzan opinion -- which Scalia joined -- all but mandates a clear and convincing standard as a federal constitutional standard. The best (really, the only) argument against my thesis that anyone raised in almost 300 comments was equal protection.
Also: in our country the will of the people is expressed through our elected representatives, not (thank God) through flawed polls that set forth only one side of an issue. I've written about that too . . .
Patterico stated:
Also: in our country the will of the people is expressed through our elected representatives, not (thank God) through flawed polls that set forth only one side of an issue. I've written about that too . . .
So are you saying that, by definition, any position an elected politician takes is 'the will of the people'? And that there's no way to determine if the actions of politicians, after elected, clash with the actual desires of their constituents? If so, you are taking an absurd position.
you're entering a category previously reserved only for the likes of Adolf Hitler and Lyndon LaroucheAhem... Hitler? These people have many objectionable aspects to them, but Nazi Germany is not anything close to their ideal model. The desired end state that these folks have is much closer to Calvin's Geneva than the Third Reich. And there is a difference.
Patterico wrote:
I refer to his declaration that it was strictly a state matter and that the Federal courts had no business intervening in it at all. It's possible that after the passage of the Federal "Terri's Law", he may have decided that since Congress had made it within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, now it was okay to take the case. But I've seen nothing to indicate either way.
Honestly, I only remember them turning it down twice, but a commentator that I generally trust said a while back that they had actually refused the case 5 times over the course of so many appeals. It's possible that is wrong, I did not check it out specifically.
But it's still foolish to pretend that merely because the legislature votes to do something, that is synonymous with the "will of the people", and doubly dishonest when innumerable polls since then have shown that the public was squarely against the Federal intervention.