Christian Leftist

I love Pennsylvania these days. We seem to be the testing ground or battleground for a number of fascinating ventures: grassroots activism (of the kind that kicked Rick Santorum out of office), illegal immigration (Hazelton, PA), intelligent design (Dover, PA), the Allegheny County smoking ban (which the Commonwealth Court just overturned on the basis that the county had no authority to enforce an ordinance on large restaurants), and Rep. Darryl Metcalfe’s nationwide campaign to pass state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants. It was only a matter of time before the ire over judicial decisions evolved into a new form of political theatre: a world in which judicial candidates can and will speak their personal opinions on legislation that might come before them in the future.

Last Monday, a federal judge in Philadelphia said that the Judicial Conduct Board cannot enforce a section of the Judicial Code of Conduct that stops candidates from voicing their positions on present or future disputed legal or political issues. The article that discusses this decision in detail is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Why is this such a big deal? Because it is an unwritten rule within the American Bar Association that politics are best left out of judicial appointments. I know that sounds strange, but in essence, this means that the ABA wants judges appointed who are the most qualified for the bench (or maybe the prettiest). Remember when Samuel Alito refused to answer any questions on abortion during his confirmation hearings? Although the Supreme Court seems to be the lone exception when it comes to mud slinging at candidates, Alito still maintained that it would not be ethical for him to predict his decisions on cases that might come before him on the Supreme Court.

The current model is to cite experience on past cases and let voters decide how they think a candidate might vote on a subject based on past decisions. Whether or not the threat of punishment by the JCB stifles the free speech of potential judges is a murky question. The violation of the “appears to commit” clause, a section of Pennsylvania law appended after a Supreme Court decision in 2002 (in which statements that show a candidate’s likelihood to have pre-formed opinions on a subject and therefore a lack of impartiality in new cases were allowed to be expressed) is the snowball that set this recent Pennsylvania case in motion. If I am interpreting the news article correctly, the Philadelphia decision has taken the U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, one step further: it has concluded that the state’s amended “appears to commit” clause is illegal or unconstitutional.

Whether or not the case will survive an appeal is unclear. What is perfectly clear is the potential damage the cloud of negative campaigns that disgrace the typical political campaign would have on the justice system if state and local judges had to agree with the majority views on social issues in order to gain or keep their jobs. Instead of leaving their personal partisan opinions at the door when they don the robes, judges would carry the weight of thousands of small-minded, geographically-based, socio-economic views into the courtroom with them. You could have identical criminal cases two towns apart where the legal precedent for a minimum sentence was clear, yet one judge imposes a fine and the other imposes a 15-year sentence. The potential implications of all nationwide judicial appointments “going negative” is enormous.

Is free speech absolute in this country? No. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded cinema or make threats to kill people. Those examples represent forms of speech that could potentially endanger lives. The political opinions of judges may indirectly threaten the lives of innocent people, but I doubt that anyone could prove it to the point that it becomes constitutionally infallible. Something to think about.

After all, that judge you’ll be standing across from for speeding shouldn’t be somebody who has promised to lock up all reckless drivers under 35.

Or should he?

There are probably a ton of people writing to the DHS concerning the enforcement of the so-called REAL ID Act, so I’m not going to pull out a bulletpoint presentation. All I’m going to say is that if for no other reason, placing all of one’s personal, private information like one’s social security number, bank statements, birth certificates, and passport information into a national database accessible by thousands of underpaid local employees is about as secure as posting that information on a billboard on a Nebraska highway. It only takes on unscrupulous passerby to notice and steal it.

If the government can’t even protect us from information brokers who selfishly expose our names and information to corporations and their own employees to turn a profit, why in the hell would I want any DMV Joe with a basic understanding of computer programming to have access to my birth certificate? People I’ve never even met would have an easier time accessing records that verify who I am as a person than I ever would.

Genealogists can’t even receive birth certificates from 200 years ago if they can’t prove a direct link to a family member. Information that is technically ‘free’ to the public, like census records, aren’t even available online unless through a paid subscription on a private site. Yet the US government wants to make information on the living that they need to work, accept payments, and receive medical care open to the Department of Motor Vehicle’s equivalent of an airport baggage handler.

What is wrong with this picture?

To write the DHS before 5pm EST on May 8th, go to http://www.realnightmare.org/actioncenter/109/

The Los Angeles times reports that the religious right is fighting yet another war on campus battlegrounds across the country. They are freedom fighters–for intolerance, that is.

Ruth Malhotra, president of the College Republicans, argues that Georgia Institute of Technology’s tolerance policy that requires its students to be respectful of and to not discriminate against GLBT people violates the civil rights of Christians. Malhotra believes that homosexuality is wrong because of her interpreation of the people; therefore, forcing her to be tolerant of homosexuals (here used as an all-inclusive term) is in itself intolerant of her religious beliefs.

One does not need to point out that the Bible has been used to justify racism and segregation less than half a century ago. Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights group (NOT to be confused with NAMBLA, for all of you South Park watchers), says that if Christian conservatives claim a right to discriminate against gays, what’s to stop others from claiming the freedom to hate people on the basis of race, religion, social status, gender, etc? Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, goes even further. He posits that “they’re [religious right-wingers] trying to devlop a
persecution complex.”

Malhotra argues that being gay is not the same as being African-American. Presumably, this point of view derives from an assumption that people ‘choose’ to be gay. It is not certain exactly what she said to this effect, but the College Republicans did send a letter to the Gay-Straight Alliance, calling their group something akin to a ’sex club.’ As in, like a strip joint.

This is only one instance in a large number of defiant actions the religious right has undertaken nationwide. Many of them also wear anti-gay slurs on T-shirts to high school, denounce Gay Pride Week at work, refuse to attend diversity training…the list goes on.

So, what do you think? Do religious conservatives have the right to be bigots?

The Easter Egg Roll. (I love how on the afore-linked news page, there’s a link to a video on the “phenomenon of peeps.” Back to the story: a century-old tradition of plenary indulgence for tots on a day of spiritual purity, a festival of youthful races and happy snapshots, and a sea of rainbow leis! Yup–about a hundred or so gay and lesbian couples gathered with the festive Hawaiian decorations to escort their kids to the fun.

Naturally, conservative Christian groups threw a fit, and several radicals (wow! Imagine calling someone besides a liberal *radical!*) stood by the lines to get in and held up signs and shouting epithets in colloquial (read: bad) English, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out on Tuesday.

I’m not sure I approve of singling one’s self out by wearing a rainbow-colored necklace, especially if the point is to simply blend in and be seen as “normal.” On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to walk up to a couple and start a conversation only to have them toss expletives in my face. What was funny was that Bush only appeared for the Katrina victims and the VIP guests. I really don’t get why everyone couldn’t enter the lawn area for the speeches if the same number of people were going to occupy the same space an hour later. Maybe Laura thought the gay couples were going to chuck their leis at her during her speech?

There is one person in American politics who almost no one slanders without severe repercussions, and he was assassinated over 35 years ago. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t have the opportunity or the motivation to talk about gay marriage, but his family does now, and thus they are a house divided.

Coretta Scott King, his widow, supports the full and equal rights of the BGTL community.
One of her sons supports her in opposing a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but has not gone so far as to say that he supports full and equal rights for all.
Her daughter has marched in support of a ban on same-sex marriage.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in defending one group of people previously chained by supposed Biblical support for slavery (which has now been debunked) and hating another group of people based on the same premises?

Hate and bigotry will never convince people to accept Christ as their savior. It will, however, serve to further alienate them from those who try to do good in His name.