Counterbias: Activist Judges - A Look Into Bush's Latest Lie

Activist Judges: A Look Into Bush's Latest Lie

Feb 29 2004
Counterbias.com
John F. Szamosi

On February 24, 2004 , President George W. Bush made two things official: he is against the idea of two men or women who love one another getting married, and he's a deceitful hypocrite when it comes to "activist judges." Bush isn’t alone in his disfavor of what is going on in San Francisco, as most would agree that cities shouldn't be able to create laws going against those created by the State (for instance, California's citizens voted against the issue of gay marriage). Governor Schwarzenegger made a good point, saying that if this becomes the norm, cities could create their own laws regarding much more dangerous issues, like allowing people to own assault weapons. However, what you're about to read isn't about whether homosexual couples should be allowed to receive civil marriage licenses, but about how Bush is less than truthful when it comes to his fear of "activist judges".

Without a doubt in my mind, the Bush administration is the most right wing administration in America's short history. Whether it's going to war without legitimate reason, lowering taxes on the rich while deceiving the poor, or trying to eliminate a woman's right to choose, this administration has made no bones about it: they will appeal to the most radical members of their base, and you can go to hell if you don't like it. Here is where the hypocrisy comes in: Bush isn't worried about activist judges. No, he's worried about judges whose liberal thinking threatens Bush’s political rigidity. When it comes to right wing activist judges, Bush's worries simply disappear. Case in point: Charles Pickering.

Charles Pickering was installed as an appellate judge by George W. Bush in what's known as a recess appointment. Knowing full well this far-right ideologue wouldn't be confirmed by the Senate, Bush decided to circumvent the legislature to put Pickering in a federal appellate seat. Why wouldn't the Senate Democrats confirm this man? Well, here's a list of the positions he has taken since the fifties:

Vehemently against the Civil Rights Act, causing him to switch from Democrat to Republican.
Pro-segregation.
Against Roe vs. Wade, which is the law of the land.
Compared a civil rights group to the KKK.
Supported the Jim Crow Laws.
Wrote a piece while at University of Mississippi 's law school, explaining how to make the law against interracial marriage less vulnerable to legal challenges.
Against affirmative action.

Looking at where he stands, Charles Pickering looks like more of an activist judge than the four justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Court who said prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. But he's not considered one by Bush, and why should he be? Activist is a code word Bush uses to slam liberal policies, just like he uses the word "quota" to try to scare people into hating affirmative action. Bush isn't the smartest guy in the world, but he is lucid enough to know that using code words can affect public perception. Another activist judge--who really was an activist--was Judge Roy Moore.

Moore is an activist, but not quite a right wing one. He's more of an attention activist, meaning, he craves media attention, just as George W Bush craved cocaine back in his carefree days. Before he became the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court, Roy Moore decided to put a small version of the Ten Commandments above his judicial bench. This brought him a lot of media attention, and just like the feeling Bush got when that first gram of blow entered his sinuses, Roy Moore was high as a kite. After getting his position in Alabama's Supreme Court, Moore decided late one night (around midnight, when nobody else was around) to erect a two ton statue of the Ten Commandments in Supreme Court lobby.

A furor ensued after Moore pulled this stunt. He was ordered by just about everybody (with one notable exception, and I'll mention him later) to remove the statue from the rotunda. Moore countered by claiming that the Ten Commandments are the basis of the laws of this country. Below is a rebuttal to this false claim:

Commandment #1 isn't a law in this country
Commandment #2 isn't a law in this country
Commandment #3 isn't a law in this country
Commandment #4 isn't a law in this country
Commandment #5 is a good idea, but isn't a law in this country
Commandment #6: murder was a crime before the Ten Commandments
Commandment #7 isn't a law in this country
Commandment #8: theft was a crime before the Ten Commandments
Commandment #9: perjury was a crime before the Ten Commandments
Commandment #10 isn't a law in this country

Items one through four aren’t laws in America. The fifth commandment isn’t a law either, but honoring one’s mother and father is a good idea. Commandments six, eight, and nine have been laws since humans stopped roaming around aimlessly and set up civilizations. Commandment seven isn’t a law, and isn’t even followed by the supposed morally superior right. Newt Gingrich, Rob Livingston, Dennis Hastert, Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, and a host of other conservatives have committed adultery if one uses the Biblical description of the sin. The tenth Commandment is the seventh of the “Big Ten” which has absolutely no application in

America

’s legal system. Wow, seven legally-useless commandments, and three commandments which have always been laws. Judge Moore’s argument holds no water, and thankfully those making sure members of the judiciary obey the law saw through Moore ’s lies.

As was mentioned earlier, there was a public figure whose opinion on the matter was noticeably absent: George W. Bush. It’s hard to find a single thing he said to Moore with respect to stop acting like Moses, and start obeying the law. Moore is more of an open activist than Pickering, and more of a renegade than any judge who thinks gays should marry. Yet Bush didn’t seem at all worried about Roy Moore breaking the law to further his own agenda.

Let’s be real. George W. Bush isn't against activist judges; he's against everyone having equal protection under the law. Bush appears slightly homophobic in many respects; but even more obvious than this, he’s become more untrustworthy than Matt Drudge.