The Tea-Publican assault on the independence of the judiciary

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Following the Arizona Supreme Court ruling against our Red Queen and her Senate Star Chamber for their abuse of power in removing the chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, there was some grousing among Tea-Publicans about impeachment of the Arizona Supreme Court.

There will almost certainly be bills introduced in the next legislative session to refer the constitutional provision for merit selection of judges back to the voters for repeal to allow for the partisan election of judges — a truly bad idea.

In Tea-Publican world, the judiciary exists merely to enforce the actions of the other two branches of government, the legislative and executive branches (but NOT "Obamacare.") Tea-Publicans do not view the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. They reject judicial review of legislative and executive actions for constitutionality under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as enunciated in Marbury v. Madison (1803). They reject the doctrine of "checks and balances" under our Constitution.

But the Tea-Publican assault on the independence of the judiciary is much more than this. In recent episodes of "Survivor – GOP Presidential Primary" debates, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have been blowing the dog whistle hard, speaking in code to the Dominionists and Christian Nationalists who "believe in a revisionist history which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives." Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (2006).

They view the Courts as the enemy of a Christian Nation because of constitutional rulings against prayer in public schools and for a right of privacy in a woman's reproductive health decisions, including abortion. Judges are godless secular humanist socialists in their view. (By the way, "socialist" is code for anyone who does not agree with their Dominionist, Christian Nationalist views. They are not using "socialist" in the dictionary definition.)

Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich frequently speaks in coded language to the Dominionists and Christian Nationalists. So does the Minnesota Loon, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Both of these Tea-Publicans went on the Sunday morning bobblehead shows on Sunday to pander to the Dominionist and Christian Nationalist base of the Iowa GOP by blowing the dog whistle hard.

What is entirely missing from the corporate mainstream media is any acknowledgement and explanation to the public at large what these candidates are  actually talking about and to whom they are directing their message.

The media villagers are entirely failing their job to inform the public because they have been intimidated into not discussing the confluence of religion and politics in the GOP. Should the media point out the obvious, the right-wing will immediately scream "War on Christianity!" to insulate themselves from any objective discussion of the radical and extremist views held by the Dominionists and Christian Nationalists. The media villagers cower, just as they have to right-wing claims of "liberal bias" in news reporting.

Newt Gingrich was overt in his assault on the independence of the judiciary and clear to whom his message was directed — he was the classic "pander bear" on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. Gingrich: Capitol Police Could Arrest ‘Radical’ Judges | Crooks and Liars:

There’s “no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that out of touch with American culture,” Gingrich said on CBS’ Face the Nation, referring to a case where a judge ruled that explicit references to religion were barred from a high school graduation ceremony. And Gingrich recently has said judges should have to explain some of their decisions before Congress.

Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked.

“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.”

A judge should have to explain his or her radical decisions, Gingrich emphasized again. Gingrich’s tough words against the judiciary branch have drawn fire from even conservatives. Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey, told Fox News that Gingrich’s proposals were “dangerous” and “totally irresponsible.”

By the way, that Judge Biery that has Newt's knickers in a bunch? He has been an ongoing rallying cry for Gingrich (whose personal "deep" religious convictions did not prevent him from breaking two or three juicy commandments, mind you) because he ruled that the school district governing Medina Valley High School outside San Antonio, Texas, could not include a benediction or prayer as part of their graduation ceremony. Damn that separation of Church and State clause.

It really doesn't signify that Biery specifically said that individual students were not prohibited from praying or referencing God; that's much too nuanced for those right-wingers desperate for proof of Christian persecution in this country. In this particular case, the ruling was swiftly overturned and the invocation and benediction went on as planned at Medina Valley High. The self-described 'agnostic' student who filed the lawsuit bypassed the ceremony. Texas's status as a backwater, Constitution-ignoring, Christofascist community is intact. But Newt is still gunning for that judge, calling for his arrest and impeachment.

Michele Bachmann was more subtle, trying to maintain the veneer of speaking in code — "We don't want those secular humanist socialists to know what we are really talking about, you betcha." Here she is on Meet the Press Gregory on Sunday. Video link http://www.bing.com/videos/browse?mkt=en-us&vid=7c198fbe-9088-4d0c-9f36-9caa88b13f53&from=&src=v5:share:permalink: (sorry, no embed).

 Bachmann is a lawyer, albeit from Oral Roberts University (now Regent University). She expressly rejects the judicial review of Marbury v. Madison (1803). "We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true." No sh*t Sherlock. This is a not-so-clever manipulation. Congress makes the laws, the executive has certain rule-making authority, but the courts review their actions for constitutionality, i.e judicial review. You know, that whole "checks and balances" thing under our Constitution.

The Gregory totally confuses Bachmann by pointing out that Congress can already change laws that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional, "that is not in dispute." Bachmann stops short of saying Supreme Court justices should be elected, saying they can be held accountable according to measures contained in the Constitution – which would be impeachment. The Gregory asks Bachmann if this means open season on judges by politicians who disagree with their decisions, which leads to another in a series of "deer in the headlights" moments during this video segment. Not exactly the brightest light in the legal firmament.

UPDATE: Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right – The Washington Post:

Gingrich has been emboldened by his reception on the campaign trial, where conservative voters have cheered his view that judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are “activists” who should be thrown out. In particular, Gingrich has criticized the US. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, on the West Coast, as well as U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Texas, who ruled this year that a public school district in Texas could not, among other things, use the words “prayer,” “amen,” “invocation” or “benediction” during a graduation ceremony.

* * *

“Overall, he’s racing towards a cliff,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the nonpartisan Justice at Stake campaign, which advocates for an independent judiciary. “It may be expedient to appeal to specific voters in primaries or caucuses, but it’s a constitutional disaster. Americans want courts that can uphold their rights and not be accountable to politicians. When you get to the point where you’re talking about impeaching judges over decisions or abolishing courts or calling them before Congress, it’s getting very far away from the American political mainstream.”