"Just Us" Sunday II; A Review

It is indeed correct ---and incisively so!--- that "abortion & gay marriage" were ever more than 'code' words for the unlettered foot-soldiers who are the rightist-marchers for the agenda of funDAMentalism! In this subculture of pseudo-religiosity, nothing is ever as it seems to be, for the subtext is intertwined with another unstated, and those frothing-at-the-mouth will be the last to figure it out, if at all, the Judge Roberts matter notwithstanding.[cf. my post of July 21, 2005 under Fresh Politics' "Play Ball: The Nomination of Judge Roberts"]

But the juxtaposition of his being interviewed by Dubya, as reported by Bruce Shapiro, on the eve of the release the next day of his decision on Guantanamo prisoners' rights or the lack thereof is a clarion call to his compromising objectivity or even the pretense thereof to expediency & more. How can he be trusted on anything, much less on his phrase "settled law" & any insight from it predictive of other rulings? A transparent negative, is it not?

The British press published a leaked document about 2 weeks ago now [when I was in London] that I have yet to find even referenced on this side of the pond. It concerns an apparent May '05 deal with Afghanistan to build a prison there under Afghan control & jurisdiction, which would allow Guantanamo to be evacuated & closed. That way, the U.S. would not be implicated in torture or worse, which no doubt would continue {the inference is mine} but without the consequences or attention of Abu Gharib or Gitmo and certainly a location where the reach of U.S. Law & Rights would not go. The disturbing aspect to me goes beyond the 'torture' issue(s) that has surfaced, as bad as that is for American values; rather, it involves an apparent decision to continue that business as usual but outside of & beyond not only our borders but our law as well. That's callous; that's unamerican. It's not what we are or have been about, historically. It's also IN-YOUR-FACE to the Congress & the American public. The current incarnation in Washington is a regime, not an administration, and John Roberts is a team player, not a jurist. Buyer beware? Be warned, and act accordingly. "Justice" Bushie style is "Just Us" indeed. Gawd 'elp, 's! as the Brits say.

Activist judges actively uphold the law for all citizens without regard to their race, color, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, disability, marital status, veteran status, or any other irrelevant criteria.

Some people just don't like equality.

Some people just don't like judges making law. It's why we have and pay elected officials for. If the law isn't fair than it should be changed, not changed from the bench. Judges are paid to interpret the law on the books not change them.

I don't particularly like judges making law, either. I especially don't like Judge Roberts making a law that gives this President the power to lock people up and throw away the key.

Judges don't make law. They interpret what is already written. In some cases, they render a law nullified because it conflicts with Constitutional principles.

Congress can pass any law it wants. However, an unConstitutional law should never be allowed to remain on the books.

All of this "legislating from the bench" stuff is just rhetoric to hook people who have no idea what is really going on or at stake

I think the very core of the problem is never really addressed properly. Since the beginnings of this nation, many Americans (on BOTH sides) have had the notion that if you can have a court say something is "legal" then it follows that that judgement is also ethical. Nothing, in fact,could be further from the truth. The real problem is that American Law has become this amazingly complex set of rituals and double-talk, a sort of religion in itself, that transcends logic and FAIRNESS.

When the United States government broke the MANY treaties that it had with Native American nations, it did so each time by having the courts say, "Yeppers, it's legal". Slavery persisted because many courts continued to uphold its legality. The same with segregation for many years. There have been a stupefying number of horrible, unjust laws in this nation's history, and all because you have very human judges who are very prejudiced, saying that they're not, and working with lawyers who are FAR more interested in their bank accounts than in what is Just and Fair.

On the issue of gay marriage for instance. Logically you cannot deny consenting adults the right to legal marriage. All "religious" prejudices aside, since we DO have a seperation of Church and State in this nation, if two men or two women wish to marry, that is their business. The divorce rate among heterosexuals is so incredibly high that any argument about homosexual marriage is beyond ludicrous. And yet, opponents of gay marriage want to "legally" force their views to be mirrored in the legal system. What is fair does not appear to enter into the equation for many (conservative) people.

As far as abortion, the matter of what is logical and fair arises again. It's the woman's body, and it is a horrible decision she has to make, but it is logically HER decision. There is the whole issue of "when is the fetus a person", but if you travel down that road then you have to start debating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. When a single Conservative man (or a married one) engages in autosexual gratification, is he killing all of those perfectly viable sperm which could create human life? And the same question for women who engage in this activity. Are they killing viable eggs? I mean, Conservatives have already opened up THAT can of worms themselves by insisting that stem cells, which would be pitched in the garbage anyway, are somehow "human life" and therefore should not be destroyed in the cause of actually saving or improving the quality of actual humans. Holding up pictures of aborted fetuses is (like many Far Right tactics) certainly a powerful image, but it is an unfair argument that side-steps the issue of just who has the right to make such decisions.

I've talked before about the Texas Law (passed into Law by then-governor Bush)which allows hospitals in Texas to make a life or death decision about patients on life-support, REGARDLESS of the desires of the family. The real purpose of this law, of course, is to save the hospitals money when an insurance company no longer wishes to pay-out or when there is no insurance to begin with (and let us not forget that currently over 40% of all Americans, though FORCED to have car insurance whether they can afford it or not, cannot afford Health coverage). Was this Law fair? I'm still perplexed as to why there wasn't more of an outcry from Conservatives on this one, since they were so concerned with the Terri Schiavo case. Once again, what is Fair and Just didn't appear to enter the picture. Economics won out on that one.

As a nation I think we should begin to consider a new approach to a legal system that has been horribly flawed to begin with. If we begin to insist that Fairness and Ethics take precedence over greed and prejudice, we just might end up with a legal system to really be proud of.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA