Sotomayor and the Rule of Law

On my way to a meeting this afternoon, I had the chance to listen to an NPR interview with Senator Grassley about Judge Sotomayor & found the sentiment he presented to be troubling.

I should never be surprised but hypocrisy does rile me up a bit.

Grassley made the charge I've heard several times from conservatives: judges should never legislate from the bench. Now that is a fair statement. I agree with it. In fact, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with it. It is the job of the legislators to make laws & the job of the courts to interpret & apply, but never change laws by simply re-interpreting them. Obviously, that doesn't mean courts shouldn't apply laws in newer ways as society evolves, e.g., the 4th Amendment not only says the gov't can't search my home without a warrant, but the gov't cannot snatch my emails from cyberspace or listen to my phone calls without a warrant either.

Sen. Grassley, evidently, agrees with me that judges should interpret the law, not make laws. He said to NPR:

"...I'm concerned that judging based on empathy is really just legislating from the bench."

...

"A legislator is to pass laws, because if you don't like the laws, you can vote them out of office. But in the case of a judge, they have lifetime appointments. You can't vote them out of office. So under our checks and balances system of government, it's very important that judges judge — in other words, interpret the law — and that legislators make law," he says.

Thus, I was a bit confused when my fellow conservatives were so elated when the NJ Firefighters case in which Sotomayor wrote for the majority was overturned by the Supreme Court. The case dealt with 18 white firefighters who scored high on a promotions exam, but where not given promotion based on that test since no black firefighters passed the particular exam.

Not fair! say most of my fellow conservatives. Agree. It is not fair. The problem is, it is what the law has said since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The rules were interpreted & the courts always ruled, that if a test was not passed by enough minority participants, it was assumed the test was unfair. That's was it. 'Nuff said. It was simply a given that there needed to be a Do Over.

The rational behind this interpretation was sound: if this was not the way the law was going to be applied, then every it would be fairly easy to design a test to intentionally exclude minorities in 1965 who were generally much less educated due to intentional discrimination. Thus, it was interpreted that there had to be an automatic re-test because proving a city intentionally designed a test to discriminate would be difficult, & proving a test was internally flawed is even harder. So the law was interpreted & applied that if minorities didn't pass the test, there had to be a re-test.

And that is precisely how Sotomayor ruled in the NJ firefighter case. It might not be fair in 2009 but that is the law.

Then the hypocrisy comes to bat: the US Supreme Court disregarded the law as written, applied & interpreted, & instead legislated from the bench a new lawIt is no longer enough that for 45 years we've said the results are enough for a Do Over; now there has to be hard evidence to throw out the results.

Ok. I can see how that might be fair (maybe.) But isn't that the job of the legislators? Is that not doing the very thing the conservatives railed at the liberal judges for doing? If they want the law to say that test results are not enough to prompt a retest, shouldn't that be written into law instead of changing 45 years of established legal principle?

Sotomayor followed the law in her ruling. It was the conservative US Supreme Court that "legislated from the bench" this time.

Linux & the Great Computer Crash

I should have known it was coming but like the procrastinator I am, I didn't do anything about it. My laptop was a screamer four years ago: sleek; up-to-date; da bomb. After four years I knew it was on its last sector malfunction but I just didn't want to buy another.

Now, it has died.

Well, sorta.

It died but my oldest son performed a resurrection miracle of sorts. My oldest is a senior at Berry College & is --- literally --- a rocket scientist. I should say, rather, he will be officially in another 7 months. He has been on me to use Linux for a while now but I was too familiar with Windows & really didn't understand all he was saying. Yes, I'm getting older.

So when the dinosaur died & the bad sectors meant no restoration, he put Linux on the machine.

Why didn't my machine die earlier? I love it! I don't think there is any reason to use Windows anymore.

The bad things is that having a computer again means less time spent doing other things & the last few weeks have been, I must say, rather productive.

Small Weddings

I've no idea how many weddings I've performed over the years. At least a hundred. One weekend I had 3 weddings. That was a killer. I can remember quite a few weekends where I've had an early afternoon & then a late afternoon wedding.

And I really don't like weddings.

Really. I don't.

Now before you call me a grouch & all, just hear me out. Weddings are fun; the fuss & mess & expense just doesn't cut it. I don't get it. None of it.

At larger weddings, the weekend is shot & my nerves need a serious vacation. Mothers are always in a tizzy. Bridzilla is ready to explode. The groom just wants it to be over. The guests are either snobs or ticked off --- or both. No such thing a a perfect wedding but the Cinderella Story is all the Miss Princess has dreamed about & her dad will pay anything to give her a helluva party.

I've had everything go wrong at weddings: fires; a streaker; storms; electrical outages; people pass out; kids being disruptive; rings dropped; ticks (no joke) found on the flower girl; never had anyone back out at the last minute --- yet.

Big weddings are just too stressful on everyone. Too expensive too.

Oddly enough, the weddings I most fondly remember are the small events. Outside or inside. Just a few friends & family. A small snack-finger food buffet. Lots of soft drinks, wine & beer for the guests. A cookout or cozy dinner reception at a non-upscale resturant. Good music. More like a family get together than a "wedding." No stress. No fuss. Everyone is happy. Everyone has a good time. And the couple starts out their life together without a debt.

Then there are the pictures at the Super Bowl Weddings. Sure, the professional photographer can give the really neat album but honestly, how long is that album even noticed? I don't think we've looked at our wedding album in 20 years. I know no one else has. But guess where it is? Sitting right slap dab in the middle of the living room as if it is the single most important thing in the whole danged house. I keep waiting for a guest to come in one day & ask to see it. Never has happened.

However, if there is ever a house fire & the people are interviewed on TV, what is it that the woman always says? We can't replace sentimental things like wedding pictures. Geez Almighty! Take a few snapshots with a disposable camera & put 'em in a safe deposit box for Pete's sake.

If there is ever a fire & I have a chance to get anything out, I'm grabbing my lap top & every old T-shirt I can carry --- you know, important stuff.

Smaller weddings are just better on everyone.

Bible Class in High Schools Just Ain't a Good Idea

Nampa charter school to use Bible as textbook - Salt Lake Tribune

Like my Dad used to say: Just because you can get by with something, doesn't mean it won't bite you in the butt one day.

Well, teaching the Bible is public school is one of those things that will come back to haunt us one day.

Now I'm sure the folks up in Idaho at this charter school think they will be educating the students but we all know that indoctrination is ever so closely behind. One doesn't have to whip out the King Jim to teach the Genesis Creation Myth in comparison to the Enuma Elish since most literature books include the relevant passages.

The problem is not the legality of teaching the Bible but the functionality of teaching the Bible in a public school. The dangers are legion. Too many extremists on both sides have prayed for a class like this (pardon the pun) --- the Extremist Religious Right/Dominionists just can't help proclaiming the Genesis Myth as historical fact, that dinosaurs were on the Ark & that our nation was founded on Christian principles; ardent atheists can't wait to impress on these young, evolving minds that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales.

The possibility of a Pat Robertson teaching a high school Bible class scares me as much as Richard Dawkins teaching it.

Or what about a Bishop Spong teaching a Bible class? Would a conservative believer want Spong's ideas presented to high schoolers?

Then comes the very real political question: if the Bible can be taught in public schools at the insistence of a majority, the same law should then allow any other religious text to be taught in the schools. Who wants the possibility of a radical Islamo-Fascists teaching the Koran to 16 year old Johnny? Is that any different than a Christian Fascist telling high schoolers that the Bible teaches anyone associated with abortion is a murder & the righteous thing to do is to do everything possible to protect life --- imagine what can happen when impressionable minds hear that sort of rhetoric?

It is the same thing teenagers in Iran are told when they become suicide bombers to get Allah's glorious reward.

Here in GA, the Macon Telegraph reports that despite the Georgia State Board of Education's approval in 2007 of courses in the Bible as history and literature, at least ten school systems in central Georgia are not offering the courses in their high schools. Their reasons are varied-- cost, scheduling problems, church-state concerns and problems in finding impartial teachers. A spokesperson for the Hancock County school system said: "We found that since many of our students have such a strong spiritual upbringing that is firmly grounded in Christianity, there was very little interest on the part of the students to take such a class."

I was quite concerned that the Idaho charter school is using material from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. (See Rob Boston article on this group.) That;s like Gandhi teach a class on proper shoe design.

Here is my list of questions that I think should be answered before any Bible class is taught to public school students.

1) What Bible translation will be used? KJV? NIV? NLT? Catholic? Jehovah Witness? Jewish OT?

2) What qualifications will you be looking for in a teacher?

3) What supplemental textbook is going to be used, since the group that helped the sponsor write the bill is the same group that sells the extreme right version of the supplemental text?

4) How will issues like tongues & baptism be handled?

5) Who will help formulate the lesson plan since the State is giving no guidelines?

6) Will the BOE members be influenced by their personal faith regarding this course?

7) Are you prepared for the guaranteed lawsuit that will come if this elective is taught since it would be the gov't sanctioning one faith over the rest?

8) Will this single issue become a rallying cry for the next political campaign as to what Bible version is used?

9) Will the content of the course become a political football so that the majority denomination on the school board decides how to teach a Bible course?

10) Are you aware that the other places where the lawsuit over this issue has been filed, it costs the BOE hundreds of thousands of dollars?

11) Will there be public meetings on the design of this course?

12) Will there be a committee of religious leaders to help design the course's content? Why or why not? Who chooses the religious leaders to be on this committee?

13) Will parents be allowed to sit in on the class?

14) Can we bring our attorney to sit on the class also?

15) Can we also bring representatives from the ACLU & AU to sit in on the class before we file the lawsuit?

16) Who's version of creation is given the preferred Biblical interpretation?

17) Will evolution be dismissed as anti-God?

18) Will it be taught that there were dinosaurs on the Ark?

Liberty University Now Treats Political Clubs Equally

Liberty Learns A Lesson: Falwell School Accepts AU Advice On Political Clubs The Wall of Separation

Looks like Liberty University has decided that political favoritism won't fly.

You remember that Liberty University decided that all Democrats on campus couldn't possibly be faithful to the school's political ideas so the College Dems were barred from being an official school club. That's when the school's tax exemption was challenged for partisanship. (Link)

Now the school has decided that the College Republicans will be treated the same as the College Dems & neither will be given the college's endorsement.

'Bout time.

No political group should be endorsed by a faith, no more than a faith should be endorsing a political group. Faith should be about changing hearts & lives with the Gospel, not the voting booth or political posturing. Treating one political group differently on Liberty's campus is effectively saying God blesses one political view & no others, something I have yet to see in the Bible. Come to think of it, the Bible never mentions anything about public spending, voting bills, social security, health care policy, taxation (except that we are to pay them taxes, even going the extra mile carrying the soldier's burden), or the judicial system, etc.

Liberty is to be commended on treating both the College GOP & the College Dems equally.

Now for the question: why didn't Liberty do the right thing to begin with?

School System Pays Big Legal Fees for Violation of Church & State

Schools' legal fees top $450,000 in prayer suit pnj.com Pensacola News Journal

You would think the schools would figure it out after a while: neither schools nor their employees may advocate religion. It is a simple concept. It is part of our Constitution. Any history major knows this is not even a gray area. Schools may not give faith a Most Favored Status. Period.

Evidently some Godslingers in one Florida school system are having to pay a price to learn that lesson all over again.

The school system settled the case back in March 2009, agreeing that prayer & religious activities would no longer be promoted as an official act by a school or school employee. Then some employee got the bright idea that the law didn't apply & that one is back in court.

In the mean time, the ACLU has attorney fees of $250,000 the school will have to pay. Ouch.

The school's insurance policy will cover part of the cost but the system will have to fork over the rest --- not to mention the other legal fees still pending.

The reason this is done is simple: the gov't has unlimited resources. The typical tax payer doesn't. The gov't needs a financial incentive to make sure it doesn't violate civil liberties, lest the gov't just outspend the very people who bring the suit after having their rights violated. If a person can't afford the fight, the school/gov't has no reason not to violate liberties if it wants. But the system is set up so that if it is found the rights were violated, the school/gov't has to pay the legal bills. After all, one shouldn't have to pay the legal fees to get the liberties that the gov't should be protecting in the first place. Rights are free, not purchased.

Perhaps this would be a reminder to all schools/gov't bodies across the nation: rights cannot be trampled upon simply because the majority doesn't agree with the minority.

Hot as Alabama

Been away on business for the last week and finished early today. All I can say is that Muscle Shoals, AL, is not the hottest place I've been too, but it was almost unbearable last week. 

I don't mind getting away from the office. Kinda like it, though the work just piles up while I'm away. Still, working away from the office, meeting the folks in Bama, all add up to a good opportunity to relax a bit.

Relaxation. I rounded up a gang to play soccer yesterday during the only afternoon when I didn't have any meetings. Managed only 2 shots on goal. My knee held up, thank God. The Good Guys pulled out a 6-5 victory.

We all shared the cold water, laughed, slapped each other on the back & left the game on the field.

Tomorrow will be a travel morning & I have nothing else scheduled until tomorrow evening. While I apologize for not being able to post on my blog or even answer my emails in a week, the respite was good for me.

Now ... early sleep & will hit the road early in the morning.

By the way, the Marriott in Florence, AL, has some serious issues with customer service. I'll leave that scathing complaint to the email.

Prop 8 & Sex With Ducks

I borrowed this from Roy Donkin's blog (Thin Places). He is the pastor at Cambridge Drive Community Church in Goleta, CA. Good blog.

He posted this. Gets the point across.

PBS Won't Allow Sectarian Broadcasting

Although the rule has been on the books since 1985, PBS has decided it will not force six PBS stations that currently carry sectarian programming to end their current coverage. However, no more purely religious programming will be allowed on the more than 350 PBS stations across the nation.

The Mass for Shut-Ins in New Orleans & Denver may continue. So may the Mormon devotionals on Brigham Young University's PBS station. Documentaries on religious topics will still be allowed, as well as news coverage of religious events.

Although Federal statute doesn't prohibit religious programming, PBS execs decided they didn't want to give the appearance of an endorsement of faith while using tax payer funds.

Fox News story.

Godslingers and Miss California, Carrie Prejean

Her 15 minutes of fame is up. Carrie Prejean said she didn't think gays should be allowed to marry. That got the Godslingers' legs all tingly & Miss California became the poster girl of a different sort: Godslingers' 38 ... caliber, of course.

But the news gets even worse. Evidently Prejean had all sorts of problems & The Donald finally had enough of her antics & failure to follow the contract. She got canned. (Click here for news article.) Racy photos. Not divulging all the info to pageant officials. Not abiding by the contract obligations.

Her opposition to gay marriage is more virtuous to Godslingers than honoring her legal obligations & keeping her word. Go figure.

Of course, she is saying the reason she was forced out was her opposition to allowing a legal contract in CA for American citizens in love. Never mind that contract is allowed for straight couples but denied to gay couples on the legal basis of ... well, I can't think of any legal basis. I do have plenty of terms to describe the bigotry that wants to keep gay couples from having the same rights as straight couples.

But then this little gem caught my attention. It is the Christian Index, the GA Baptist newspaper. It seems that when the Christian Index ran an article extolling her virtues, some people took issue with her assets.

The picture above is the same as was printed in the Christian Index. Very tame. But not to Godslingers.

Ms. Barbara Blue of Pinetta, FL, thinks the picture was a disgrace. Worldly. Of the flesh. Satan inspired. Thank goodness for her church's Women Dressing Modestly Conference lest she have been tempted to strip in Walmart to cool off after searching for bargains:

Our church (Morningside Baptist Church in Valdosta) recently had a woman’s meeting on modesty. The ladies were reminded of the basics in dressing. A good guideline is not too short or not too revealing, or too tight and no cleavage. Miss Prejean fails in all areas by these standards. Are we not as Christians to present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to the Lord?

Then there is Beth Robertson of Valdosta, GA, the home of high school football & not much else, evidently. Ms. Robertson thinks the picture is "provocative" and there is no excuse for a woman to ever show cleavage outside her home:

For heaven’s sake women, please understand that God made a man to respond to what he sees, so please cover your body up when you are going out in public!! We as women will answer to God for causing men to have thoughts they would have never had toward us if we would just have been dressed appropriately. The world says “showing skin is in” but God says it is a sin for a Christian woman to dress like the world.

Maybe Ms. Robertson & Ms. Blue would prefer Christian women dressed as Muslim ladies, complete with veils so no man can lust? Come to think of it, these two folks sound very similar to the Muslims who insist it is the woman's fault when a man lusts. Hmmm.

But I am also reminded of another Godslinger bunch: the Pharisees. They made all sorts of rules that sounded sooooo pious, complete with Scriptural references to hinge their rules of outward compliance.

Odd. Muslims. Pharisees. Christians. All with the same attitude to make rules. Or is just human nature to be Godslingers?

Ever heard of the Bruised & Bleeding Pharisees?

The Blind (or Bruised and Bleeding) Pharisee: This type of Pharisee was typified by the idea of him walking with his head down or turned away to avoid looking at, or bumping into women (who might be on their menstrual cycle) or other unclean folks. So, because they weren't looking where they were going, they would end up bruised or bleeding from their avoidance of small things (cleanliness laws) - all the while forgetting the more important laws. Jesus refers to some Pharisees as ‘blind guides’, possibly referring to this type of Pharisee.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give
a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. (Matthew 23:23-24)

Make sure she covers up because that is sinful but let's not talk about treating other Americans fairly when their view of sin is different than ours. Make sure the sin is in the legal code but justice is thrown out the window.

Sigh.