Dobson compares Judges to KKK
On his radio broadcast today, James Dobson compared the federal judiciary to the KKK:
DOBSON: I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that's what you're talking about.
Now I ask you, is this really mainstream? Is this what Bush voters support? Because this is what we are getting. America has flourished, infact depends, on an independent judiciary. And here we have absolute cretins with no concept of freedom or diginty or balance advocating the destruction of one of the pillars of American government.
And oh, by the way, yes, I know that Dobson isn't elected. He's a symptom of the disease, a vile carrier of intolerance, opportunism and religious fervor. Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Richard Shelby and Minnesota's own Michelle Bachman - They are the disease. How far will Bush voters let these apparatchiks go before the kick them out of office? Pretty far, I wager. Far enough to disfigure America, anyway.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 10:44 PM |
| 
4 Comments:
"Far enough to disfigure America?"
They are fighting for the status quo. To not introduce a change. How is that disfiguring? Call them relics, anachronistic, unfair - but Dobson et. all are the ones resisting change.
Signed,
-Censored
Uh, trying to eliminate judicial independence that goes back to 1803 is not the status quo. It's a radical change to our system of checks and balances.
The notion that the present rash of judicial activism is the continuation of a practice that has been ongoing for hundreds of years lacks any credability.
If anything there is ample evidence to the contrary (Dred Scott for example.)
Characterizing it otherwise is either misleading or ignorant.
There is a change that is being driven here though, and it is gay marriage.
I have nothing against it, I have no objection to what consenting adults do, and I'm all for any group that self selects to pay higher taxes. (It eases the need to raise mine.)
However, I am unwilling to impose my personal values or beliefs on the rest of the country. If a majority reject the notion of gay marriage, that's just how it is.
As times change, and people become more open minded I think its inevitable that this will come to pass. But, that doesn't mean that it should today.
Signed,
-Censored
This is fascinating reading. In each of the posts, a quotation is taken just slightly out of context from a source like "Media Matters for America", the "Rolling Stone", and then the commentary describes those with contrary political points of view as "diseased" or "vile", or having "no concept of freedom or dignity or balance".
Ironically, "Anonymous" has posted several very sound remarks in a calm, balanced and factually accurate way. It's a free country, and you are certainly entitled to express your opinion in this manner, but from a casual observer on the outside, your arguments are passionate, but not convincing. I believe the "Left" doesn't care if they are convincing, and that may be why, in spite of public schools, more people are seeing the other side of the arguement more favorably than yours. I look forward to receiving an emotional, irrational thrashing for this posting, but I could be wrong.
If anyone wishes to engage in an intellectual dialog, read the entire set of the Federalist Papers first. This is where truly intelligent men argued properly and respectfully about the role of government and the proper balance of the three branches. The term "Independent Judiciary" doesn't mean "unrestrained". The US Constitution is to be the basis for all court interpretations of the law. The Constitution, which gave you equal rights, is founded on those "vile" Christian principles you write of, and was the guiding principle of the Judiciary, until recently. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has openely stated that the original intent of the Constitition will not be the basis of her decisions. This is technically a breach of her social contract with the Senate who confirmed her and the people who elected the Senate.
Thomas Jefferson warned us with this question: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"
Post a Comment
<< Home