An Act of Faith? [Flap over Jeb's appointment of Christian conservative to bench]

Miami Daily Business Review; and Letter to the Editor ^ | Feb. 7, 2002; and March 11,2002 | Julie Kay; and Thomas Shea - Broward County Christian Legal Society

[screed]

So, Mincberg is saying that only people who have nothing to do with this religion -- Christianity -- are capable of serving in a judicial capacity? Because geesh, that really limits the field of choices to appoint!

That is PRECISELY the goal. Recently in the People's Republic of Canada, they were editorializing and campaigning against candidates for no other reason than BEING Christian, openly and unabashedly. In other words, if you are a Christian in Canada, you are not entitled to hold office. PERIOD! I read the article here on FR a number of months ago. I don't know where I would find it now. Then again I haven't bothered to look.

[summer]

I hear ya. Gov. Bush has really kept on top of appointments here in FL. Nothing like what goes on in DC.

[summer]

But, I wonder WHY the People for the American Way don't realize they sound like this? Substitute any other religion in their statements -- Judaism, Islam, whatever-- and people would be blasting them for promoting such one-sided views.

[screed]

But, I wonder WHY the People for the American Way don't realize they sound like this? Substitute any other religion in their statements -- Judaism, Islam, whatever-- and people would be blasting them for promoting such one-sided views.

Political Correctness at its best. Apply the same test you mention here to the media. Pick out a film, a news report, a book, a magazine article whatever, that attacks Christianity. It won't be hard to find one, trust me. Then apply your same test. If you changed the Christian to Jew, Muslim or Bhudist in that story about religious extremism, would you see that article or book in print? Probably not. Would that movie about the fundamentalist Christian serial killer EVER be made about a fundamentalist Hebrew serial murderer? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah right!

My point. This is nothing new. The test can be applied to gender as well. Look at how men are treated in news and entertainment media compared to women. And on and on and on. This has been going on for a long long time. The hipocracy of liberals and the politically correct in general is the common denominator of their entire agenda. If they didn't lie, they wouldn't be in business.

Why don't people blast them for it? They are afraid, and for very good reason. They are being systematically intimidated. Ask a conservative who has been invited to speak on an American campus about the protests and the death threats. Look at the name calling and hate speech laws. Disagree with affirmative action? Why then you are a racist. Disagree with the so called glass ceiling argument? You must be a sexist. Don't want your elementary school aged children being taken off to a Homosexual identity awareness camp without your permission? You are a homophobe. And on it goes. Hate speech laws are being directly targeted at people who question political correctness or the liberal agenda. People in large corporations are being forced to sign documents that say they can be fired for saying or doing something politically incorrect, even away from the workplace. I know this from personal experience. Say something politically incorrect in the workplace in front of a liberal and find out how long it takes you to be marched into HR, or sued, or BOTH.

First of all, I question it every chance I get. It is my new mantra. Political Correctness never goes unchallenged in my presence. I write letters and e-mails. I correct perfect strangers in public when I hear them vomiting forth their politically correct dogma. I call businesses who run politically correct ad's. I respond to them on radio shows. And I send letters to liberal professors at American Universitities.

It is my opinion that if we stopped tolerating their bullying and lies, we would win. You would be amazed at how many of them are absolutely stunned that anyone would DARE disagree with the politically correct ideal. It is really kind of funny, and sometimes you even get bystanders to applaud you.

[F16Fighter]

This Senate would find Ruth Bader-Ginsberg too conservative....

Dubya is just gonna have to begin hammering through HIS nominees by whatever means, even if through emergency-proxy in the dead of the night. High time this obstructionist D-Rat Senate headed by the Perverted Drunken-Cavone from Massachusetts is reminded as to who is President.

[John SBM]

summer, thanks for the heads-up, I always enjoy your posts.

You may recall that my reaction to the Baldwin post was not all positive. The point I made was that Conservatives sometimes seem over-willing to validate liberal arguments by showing that they too can be politically correct. I labeled that post as showing how conservatives "concede the premise" to the liberals when they validate the importance of race or "social-correctness" as more important than qualifications or principle. I think the point of this post shows that no matter how often conservatives attempt to show that they too can "play to the public concerns" liberals raise, they will never get a free pass to be conservative. Logically, when you concede the premise, you have lost the argument. Sorry, but I think this article shows my concern was valid.

[summer]

I think the point of this post shows that no matter how often conservatives attempt to show that they too can "play to the public concerns" liberals raise, they will never get a free pass to be conservative. Logically, when you concede the premise, you have lost the argument. Sorry, but I think this article shows my concern was valid.

John, thanks for your post and kind words. I always enjoy reading your replies too!

My conclusion is the opposite of yours.

And, the reason I wind up here is because I believe you are starting from a faulty premise -- that he is "playing" to liberals -- as I feel Gov. Bush is making judicial appointments fairly, as to the best qualified candidates, and without regard to how every move he makes is perceived by a group like PFTAW. I think his concern is for the people of Florida. And, his long list of highly qualified appointments, who are also diverse, proves that.

You'd have to read more about his philosophy to understand how I am drawing this conclusion. And, I do have a link posted, on an earlier post on this thread, which links to his philosophy, if you are interested.

Consequently, I think this post proves he does what he believes is best -- and that has resulted in a wide variety of highly qualified people appointed to the bench here in FL.

John, Just my 2 cents! :)

[summer]

PS See post #14 for the link.

[summer]

screed, Thank you for your post #24 - very, very interesting to me. I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts here. :)

[summer]

I'll tell you one thing - I think people, just the regular voters, are very saddned when they hear of all the time wasted in DC. We need judges -- so get them, and let these judges get to work.

[LarryLied]

Mara Liasson of NPR claimed on FOX News last night that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a "moderate." When Brett Hume chuckled, she changed it to "moderate to liberal."

[summer]

LOL...

[F16Fighter]

Most of the "people" haven't the foggiest as to what's actually going on it the courts, do they?

The longer the D-Rats in the Senate can hold up Dubya-appointed judges, the longer Bubba's liberal appointees can remain on in ruling as though they are Commissars in the Soviet Union.

Right -- LET'S GET OUR JUDGES IN -- NOW!

[John SBM]

summer, I will concede to your points regarding Jeb Bush. But, I will be a little stubburn on the point of concession. Even if Jeb is himself being totally true to his principles and appointing people only for their qualifications, the conservative movement at large suffers from the need to battle the liberals by conceding their points and trying to show how they can conform. In this case, it makes it harder for Jeb to be principled, because his conservative appointments will still be beat up by the liberals, and his more "socially aware" appointments will be consdered by the same liberals as "too little, too late". All because so many conservatives feel the social pressures to concede falacious points to the liberals rather than tackle then head on.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

But for many Democrats, the real start of Bush's conservative makeover of the state judiciary began last spring. That's when the GOP-dominated Legislature handed the governor the power to appoint all members of the state's 26 judicial nominating commissions, stripping the Florida Bar of its power to appoint three members of each nine-person panel.

I think that this quote from the article shows the hidden agenda here. The leftist wackos who control the American Bar Association in general, and in southeast Florida in particular had this idea that THEY had the right to name the judges. The result of that was seen by the whole country after the last presidential election, when the left-wing radicals on the Florida Supreme Court exposed themselves for what they are.

Fortunately the GOP controlled legislature has taken this power away from them, and now they are going to attack his appointees for whatever causes they can invent.

In a sense we are fortunate that, safe in their south Florida ideological cubbyhole, they think that they can attack Bush for naming Christians to public office. That will not play in this state. Certainly the low-church Protestants who dominate Protestantism in this state will not be entertained by this approach, nor will the Catholics, including the Cubans. A large part of the black community will not think that naming a Christian is a bad thing. They are attacking to advance a selfish personal agenda with a weapon that will not work in Florida.

[summer]

John, Thanks for your thoughtful post. Also, I think you make valid points in your reply #34. And, one recent example regarding some of what you say may be what happened with Pickering. If blacks in his home state of Mississippi had such high praise for him --- and they did -- then there was really no reason, IMO, for Dem leaders to block that appointment.

[summer]

Most of the "people" haven't the foggiest as to what's actually going on it the courts, do they?

Some of the posters on DU are very much aware of what is going on, and from what I read of their posts, they claim they hope the Senate Dems block every single one of GW's judicial appointments -- as some kind of payback for past delays of Clinton's appointments. IMO, this is the kind of thinking that makes the general population lose interest in politics, and just doesn't serve any useful purpose. Yes, judicial nominees are important -- but so is having enough judges on the bench. Move the process along. Blocking it may just backfire in the end.

[summer]

...That will not play in this state. Certainly the low-church Protestants who dominate Protestantism in this state will not be entertained by this approach, nor will the Catholics, including the Cubans. A large part of the black community will not think that naming a Christian is a bad thing. They are attacking to advance a selfish personal agenda with a weapon that will not work in Florida.

I agree with you there, LCS. And, as my previous essay began to demonstrate: no one can classify Gov. Bush's judicial appointments in any one way, except that they are all highly qualified.

I think Gov. Bush has done an exceptional job here, of filling the needs of FL's judiciary. And, the fact that there is less in-fighting and less delay is a welcome relief, in my view, in light of the wide variety of people he has appointed.

BTW, I having a hard time imagining a Dem FL governor appointing both (1) a highly qualified Christian conservative female, as well as (2) a highly qualified black male Dem (mentioned in my essay linked in my post #1) -- as Gov. Bush has done.

I think the left loses support, especially in FL, when they complain about appointments that do not fit their image -- because while they may not ever want to admit it, many Christian conservatives live in FL too.

[nickcarraway]

CLS is a national organization of lawyers, judges and law professors that promotes government "neutrality" toward religion, which many legal experts interpret to mean a weakening of the separation between church and state.

Wow, is that a give away. Being neutral to religion is considered a bad thing. One must be advesarial towards religion.

[summer]

I meant to quote you here as well: "...they think that they can attack Bush for naming Christians to public office. That will not play in this state...."