LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

Washington Post: Political Appointees No Longer to Pick Justice Interns

( Excerpt. Click Headline for full story. )

So what we seem to be hearing is that this politicization of the Justice Department has been noticed, and someone is trying to put the brakes on it. I found this section of the article particularly telling with regards to how this hiring was done in the four years of appointees running the programs.

Bill Condon, an honors hire in the civil rights division who graduated in 2004 from Regent University, a small Christian school in Virginia Beach, recounted his job interview recently in the school's alumni magazine. Condon wrote that, when an interviewer asked him which Supreme Court decision he disagreed with most, Condon cited a 2003 ruling that struck down a Texas law outlawing homosexual acts, a decision that has been a lightning rod for social conservatives.

One of his interviewers, Condon wrote, suggested that, coming from Regent, "I may be interested in some religious liberties cases" the civil rights division was bringing in a new area of emphasis for the division.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY velvetpage)

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061116/23486.htm

Basically, she didn't want to have to work Sundays, and she wanted her job back when the library fired her for not wanting to work Sundays.

The part I like the best is right at the end - where the legal fees are SIX TIMES her lost wages for that time period. It's a good time to be a Christian lawyer, isn't it?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY jehovahsfitness)

At the grocery store today, I was seeking out milk that didn't contain rGBH (I recently watched The Corporation). The kind I found was Promised Land Dairy brand. Now, the name didn't give me any red flags. There's a lot of brands that use religious wording that don't particularly have religious motivations in mind and many without such names that do. However, when I got home I noticed a Bible verse on the label, so I decided to do some sleuthing.

Turns out Promised Land is owned by a Texan businessman by the name of James R. Leininger. From 1987-1997 Leininger spent more than 4.6 million dollars to influence elections and on political issues like tort reform and vouchers. According to the Dallas Star-Telegram this primary season alone he has donated over $550,000 to various state-level Republican candidates. Five candidates he's backing all have "nearly identical" fliers. Interestingly, Leininger also owns a direct mailing business, Focus Direct. Leininger has funded Focus on the Family, the AFA and the Family Research Council and has founded several PACs and a think tank based on the Heritage Foundation's model.

Not to be confused with another James Leininger, a supposedly reincarnated WWII pilot.

More links:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=492
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_R._Leininger
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/leininger.html
http://www.texscience.org/reform/leininger.htm
http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/leininger/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue22/pols.leiniger.profile.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY bodylotion)

Anyone know anything about the Thomas More Law center? I found this http://www.thomasmore.org/resources.html at their site. It includes free book covers with the 10 commandments, and a book marker with questions to ask biology teachers about evolution.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY morchades)

Has anyone seen this article on polgamy yet? There's one paragraph that applies to this community In it, she's promoting a book of interest:

Unfortunately, the largest barrier to a healthy discussion will be the American instinct to treat religiously-motivated conduct as though it should not be held accountable - regardless of the harm that is caused. I document this phenomenon in my recent book, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, and it is a very real component of American debate.

Also, taken from my own journal last week (I haven't been able to find any reference to this in this community):

Found this lobbyist group through Mike the Mad Biologist. Sounds like it was started in reference to some new rule that lets Commanders endorse their religious beliefs to the troops in the USAF. The mission statement starts out wonderfully.

"The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

MRFF recognizes that military life requires individual adherence to shared patriotic principles. MRFF also recognizes the need for military personnel to at times temporarily relinquish some Constitutionally granted personal freedoms for the sake of military discipline and objectives.

However, MRFF believes that religious faith is a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom that must never be compromised, except in the most limited of military circumstances, because of its fundamental importance to the preservation of the American nation and the American way of life."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

Source article in Baptist Press

[The Public Expression of Religion Act] would change a federal law that allows attorneys’ fees to be paid by the government when a court finds a person’s civil rights have been violated. The bill would bar the awarding of attorneys’ fees when the deprivation of rights involves the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

( Full Text of the very long article in the Baptist Press )

So, let's follow the logical progression. The ACLU is prevented from recovering legal fees when it challenges an unconstitutional religious expression. The lawyers who put in the tremendous amount of work fighting these battles can't get any compensation. The attorneys for the government entity in question are paid for their time defending said "unconstitutional religious expression". There are no more cases brought against the government challenging "unconstitutional religious expression" by government.

Why only freedom of/from religion cases? It would seem clear that Indiana’s John Hostettler is another Dominionist to keep an eye on.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY jehovahsfitness)

I've been perusing David Limbaugh's website and uncovered a bunch of links to the kinds of organizations that we should be paying attention to. Since Limbaugh is a lawyer, there are quite a few legal organizations among them. Most were obvious in their Domionist sentiments, but some just appear to be benign Christian organizations. It's hard to tell, because "religious liberty" has been used by the Christian Right, including Limbaugh, to mean Christian supremacy. The first organizations I've been unable to pin down is The Rutherford Institute which is pro-life in that it opposes abortion, but interestingly also in that it opposes the death penalty. There's also a lot about the erosion of civil liberties on their website. It looks like they're pretty independant and probably not related to Dominionism. The other is The Christian Legal Society. Their 'core purpose' is "Transforming the legal profession for good one heart and mind at a time by enlisting lawyers and law students everywhere to faithfully serve Jesus Christ in the diligent study and ethical practice of law by ministering to the poor, reconciling people in conflict, defending life and protecting the religious liberties of all people." From what I can see the organization itself is pretty neutral; it doesn't seem to hold any position on any of the issues that we and Dominionists are concerned with.

If you're wondering what a blatantly Dominionist legal organization looks like, see here

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Tennessee has 1st Amendment right, too

The state would be within its rights to issue specialty license plates reading "Choose Life" while denying a plate encouraging abortion rights, a U.S. appeals court ruled yesterday.

Messages on Tennessee license plates are government speech, not a public forum as the American Civil Liberties Union argued, the majority decision of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. While one-sidedness may be "ill-advised" on politically charged issues like abortion, the court ruled there's nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits it.

What is happening to the judiciary in this country? Is it fear, as Sandra Day O'Connor suggests?

EDIT: I have become aware that my original intent was not made clear. Let me state it bluntly. Government has responsibilities. Government does not have civil rights. Civil rights are what we use to protect ourselves from the encroachment of government. That was the thought process behind my question above.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY hummingwolf)

Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation.
...
"Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.
...
"I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY dunesong)

Hello all. First off a heartfelt thanks from me to all who posted advice or information to my post concerning my sister. I have posted a longer thank you there, but in case it was missed, I wanted you to know I really appreciated the time you took to post and the wealth of info provided.

Now onto the insanity:

Alito kisses up to Dobson. Plus Dobson pulls a Robertson and prays for a vacancy on the court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/alito-sends-james-dobson-_b_16596.html

To me it seems like these people are getting more and more bold. This just reeks of conflict of interest. This thing that strikes me is that he wanted it public. Even if this is somehow legally legitimate, it has the appearance of impropriety. That use to mean something.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Having trouble sleeping at night? Plagued by nightmares, illness, bad luck? Chances are that someone is praying against you. And if you are one of the four remaining moderate Supreme Court Justices, there are people actively praying for your demise.

Think I'm joking? Read on.

Here's my prayer list: Ginsburg – gone! Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy – gone! Installed in their place: God-fearing, Constitution-loving justices flanking Roberts on both right and left! There are four remaining liberal judges on the nation's high court. That equates to four justices who are anti-life (in the name of choice), pro-perversion (in the name of privacy) and anti-American (in the name of progress). May God banish them from the court.

Let's not be deceived. In Alito, we've wrested away the swing-vote, but apart from radical judicial change, the slaughter of unborn millions and the protection of vice and perversion will continue indefinitely. We need a complete reversal in the court's balance of power, not a mere shift from the left.

This person is praying for the downfall of the United States. It is as simple as that. This person wants a theocracy. If they want a theocratic government so badly, maybe they should move to an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia.

Here's the toxic prayer:

God, in Jesus Name, destroy the hold which dark powers have had over much of our nation's leaders. Bring down Your divine gavel upon those judges who have used their position of authority to exalt their will against You and against Your word.

Forgive us Lord, for the sanctioned slaughter of multiplied millions of innocent lives, and for the protection we've afforded perversity and ungodliness. Remove from power, oh Lord, those who hate You and have used their power to abolish Your name from the ears, minds and hearts of our nation's children.

God, give us more justices who fear You and respect Your law. In Jesus' name, Amen.

EDIT: OK, out with the counterprayer. If God has a sense of humor, (and I expect that Sie does) Sie'll give them a divine wedgie and give us a good laugh when Sie decides to do something.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY exotic_princess)

*headdesk* The time is ripe, people! What with Roberts and probably Alito soon to be on the bench, it's time to overturn Roe v. Wade!!

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45410

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.

A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days.

The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.

And the lawmaker who's introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.

Rep. Roger Hunt says, "Abortion should be banned."
( Read more... )

I actually saw the following in a response to a recent Raw Story article (on a leaked Justice Department memo in regards to the ongoing scandal about how the NSA may have illegally spied on US nationals with the President's consent and used warantless wiretaps--reportedly, the Justice Department will be defending the President) and, well...it's piqued my interest, to put it mildly.

Namely--at least according to this blogger--it may theoretically be consitutionally possible to have impeachment proceedings begin without the House Judiciary Committee voting for it, specifically, by a state government calling for impeachment:
( here's the whole skinny )

Now, I'll be honest. Most of me is inclined to take this with a bit of salt...but I'm having problems finding flaws in the strategy he's taking (at least as far as *getting the dominionists out of office*). It also might be worth looking into *state* impeachment rules, too.

Comments?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Quoting from DefCon's Blog:

Two of DefCon’s advisory board members, Kate Michelman and Erwin Chemerinsky, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings this week. Michelman and Chemerinsky will most likely appear before the Committee on Thursday to contribute their expertise to the hearings, however the date could change depending on whether the Committee stays on schedule.

What’s equally exciting is that on Friday, January 13th, at 1pm, Michelman and Chemerinsky will join DefConAmerica.org for our first live online chat. Michelman and Chemerinsky will be discussing Judge Alito and answering your questions on the potential threat he poses to the separation of church and state.

Stay tuned for details on how to submit a question for either Kate Michelman or Erwin Chemerinsky. Our moderator will then pose your questions to Michelman and Chemerinsky and you’ll be able to tune into the chat by visiting our website, http://www.defconamerica.org.

A live chat! Sounds interesting! What questions would you pose?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

Ministers from Philadelphia, New York and Washington today criticized plans by religious conservatives to hold a nationally broadcast rally Sunday at an African American church on North Broad Street on the eve of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington and a United Church of Christ minister, called the gathering nothing more "a big play" by its conveners "to gain control over the one branch of government they don't now control."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Talk to Action article talks about some Dominionist folks doing a bit of pre-hearing religious cheating:

A group of three ministers who have a history of advocating that the Ten Commandments should trump the U.S. Constitution have told the Wall Street Journal that they entered an unlocked Senate hearing room in order to anoint with oil the chairs that will be used for the confirmation hearing next week of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington. He was accompanied by Rev. Pat Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, and Grace Nwachukwu, general manager of a group called Faith and Action, of which Rev. Schenck is president and co-founder. Rev. Schenck, Rev. Mahoney, and Rev. Nwachukwu spearhead the National Ten Commandments Project, launched in 1996, and claim to have distributed more than 400 plaques of various sizes that can be seen in offices throughout the Capital.

Rev. Schenck was trained at the Elim Bible Institute in Lima, NY. Along with fellow Elim alum Randall Terry, Schenck helped found the underground Operation Rescue, which has invoked "higher law" to justify not only peaceful civil disobedience, but also bloody revolution with "real bullets" and "real blood." Schenck later founded the National Community Church, a charismatic Pentecostal congregation in Washington, D.C., whose members included the then-junior Senator from Missouri (and future U.S. Attorney General) John Ashcroft, along with Ashcroft's family and several congressional staffers.

Nice. Anyone for a counter-prayer to neutralize the noxious nonsense?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY pdx42)

cross-posted to liberal_bias
[LINK to article]

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person." The judge went on to say, “the separation of church and state,” which the ACLU referred to repeatedly, an “extra-constitutional construct [that] has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. ... Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and[,] in some cases, accommodation of religion.... Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.”

The "extra-Constitutional construct" that the judge is referring to is commonly called the Establishment Clause, that interpretation of the First Amendment that basically says that "freedom of religion" is intrinsically tied to "freedom from religion", and gave rise to the term "separation of Church and State", which has its basis in the Federalist Papers, and Court precedent going back to the early days of this nation.

In defense of this decision by Judge Suhrheinrich to ignore the Establishment Clause, the conservative talking points of the day emphasize that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of modern law, and that the laws and liberties of the United States are an extension of that.

I don't buy it.

Only three of the Ten Commandments are codified in US Federal Law, and all three -- murder, theft, false witness -- are so basic that they have been codified by every culture as far back as there have been codes, and are so intrinsic to the social fabric that they legitimately fall within Rousseau's Social Contract. Three out of ten is not a good basis to say that modern law is based on the Ten Commandments.

The Magna Carta, on the other hand, is the first document in Western civilization to afford civil liberties to all noblemen formerly reserved only for monarchs, and was thus the basis for all subsequent laws that extended or expanded rights and liberties. For historical documents, the Hammurabic Code would be a far better example than the Ten Commandments of the early codification of laws that we now consider dear.

Furthermore, the display is clearly a display of historical documents intrinsic to the founding of the United States of America; the other major documents displayed are the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner". To include the Ten Commandments, one would have to first accept that the Ten Commandments is an historical document (a matter in dispute), and that it is an integral part of the United States' history, a claim with no real basis.

Third, the Ten Commandments, while intrinsic to two major religions of the World -- Judaism and Christianity -- does, when displayed in a courthouse, place a certain expectation on how the Court will view cases and defendants before it. The judge in this case is clearly looking at the display through his pious Christian eyes, rather than the eyes of a defendant, or even an attorney, who perhaps does not believe in the validity of all the Commandments, or perhaps has broken a few that are *not* codified into law. If I appear before a court in this courthouse that is endorsing the Ten Commandments on a par with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, will it work against me in this court if I have been disrespectful to my mother (Commandment #5), not kept holy the Sabbath Day (Commandment #4), or worshipped a different God (Commandments #1 and #2)?

By now, I am sure you have rolled your eyes at me so much that you're getting dizzy, but consider the reality of this. The Court has placed a religious document with only tangential relationship to our laws on equal footing with the actual historical documents upon which our laws and our liberties are based. How can that possibly not be seen as prejudicial and biased in favor of a certain religious view?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

'Jews for Jesus sues Google over blog'

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

The South Dakota initiative would create a special grand jury to hear complaints against judges based on an open-ended list of possible grievances. The list specifically includes not only crimes such as graft but certain flaws in reasoning, such as ignoring evidence and "sophistry."

The grand jury would have power to set aside judges' immunity from civil suits by the people they rule against. It also could levy fines or hand down indictments, subjecting judges to criminal proceedings before special trial juries with the power to sentence as well as convict. After three missteps, a judge would be disqualified from holding office.

The initiative author is Ron Branson, a Baptist minister, a former minor Republican party official in Los Angeles County and a frequent unsuccessful litigator in the state and federal courts.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Law.com article takes a look at Jay Sekulow, one of the Religious Right's major players. It's a fascinating tangle of high finance, tangled alliances, and God-talk.

( Read more... )