Marla R. Stevens

This has been so NOT about Miers...

Filed By Marla R. Stevens | October 27, 2005 9:01 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics

... her positions, or her relative lack of qualifications to serve in this area of the law.

The biggest clue to that was yesterday's piece in the Washington Post by Mathew D. Staver, head of the Falwell-backed Liberty Counsel, who is one of the most dangerous radicals on the right wing legal scene and anything but a conservative -- that and earlier comments on Hardball by Pat Buchanan along with some of the comments from Robert Bork about why the AmTaliban has had their knickers in a twist about one who seemed so one of their own being nominated for the O'Connor seat.

What Staver and cronies are trying to protect -- beyond the opportunity to trash years of work of a judiciary that had finally begun to act in favor of the Constitution entire, including its penumbrum -- is their carefully nurtured plan to steal the legal system from mainstream America.

But it's not just that. Of course they're acting out of ideological concern but massive self-interest in the AmTaliban law schools and firms Staver and cronies have created to underpin the theft and which they now have an enormous stake in is an equally, if not more significant factor driving their demands on this administration.

They don't just want this seat for one of their on-the-record radicals, they need it to keep the promise of their machine alive -- that attending their schools, writing radical attack tomes, standing on the side of ignorance, hate, and radical regression as attorneys, and pushing ignorance, hate, and radical regression from the benches of the lower courts will be rewarded for those who do that the most pointedly and predictably.

In order to fuel their machine with new legal talent, they need to show that those who participate fully in the war of words against the Constitution as a living document that can fully encompass the religious pluralism of America will be protected and promoted to the highest court -- that the Dominionists will take care of their own enough that they can safely be activists at every stage of their careers instead of waiting to be so when they've ascertained that they've reached the pinnacle of their legal careers.

It's what Shrub promised them in so many words and they've been madder than an upturned mess of hornets in Indian summer that he's tried to welch on the deal.

If there's ever been a time to demand the nomination of a mainstream judicial thinker who will really protect the Constitution from the likes of Staver, Buchanan, and Bork, this is it. Call the White House, e-mail Congress and follow that up with phone calls, and put out the call in the press and on the 'net that the next nominee should not be chosen from the wish list of the Dominionists but should be someone who will apply the living Constitution and not try to bend a lifeless piece of paper around a rigid ideological agenda of a vocal minority.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Anonymous said...
Really that basic; will our Constitution remain a living document or become a lifeless manuscript.

Anyone interested in a crash course on what separates liberal and conservative judges - the strengths and weaknesses of both sides - may find these books helpful:

Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution by Stephen Brayer

A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia