The battle over Bush's judicial nominees, Bill Frist's threatened "nuclear option" and the eleventh hour "bipartisan compromise" have occupied the news recently, and with good reason. Many of the Bush nominees - including those now headed for lifetime seats on the federal bench - are "originalists."

What's an "originalist"? The term refers to the way a jurist interprets the U.S. Constitution. H. Jefferson Powell defined the originalist perspective in his 1987 article "Rules for Originalists" in the Virginia Law Review: "Those who advocate giving normative force to the 'original intent' of the Constitution's framers... adherence to the Constitution's original meaning(s) without locating that (those) meaning(s) in the founders' actual intention."

Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork offered a functional definition his 1990 book The Tempting of America. An originalist believes "all that counts" for a judge interpreting the Constitution "is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time [of enactment]." By "the Constitution" originalists mean the document written by the Founding Fathers. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution are not, originalists believe, on a par with the original text.

Applying Bork's definition to the Declaration of Independence, one would have to conclude that "all men are created equal" means exactly that: men, not women. And since slaves were not really considered "human" much less citizens in the eighteenth century, African-Americans and other "minorities" unrecognized then simply don't exist today either, legally speaking. That may be why originalists have such a problem with equality and civil rights.

Originalist William H. Pryor, one of the previously filibustered nominees for the 11th U.S. circuit court of appeals, is a leading proponent of the "federalism" movement, the goal of which is to limit the authority of Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other civil rights. Mr. Pryor is particularly hostile to recognizing - much less protecting - gay Americans' equality or civil rights. His judicial attitude was made clear in the amicus brief he filed with the Supreme Court during the Lawrence v. Texas case. Pryor argued government has a legitimate interest in singling out same-sex relationships for punishment and compared those relationships to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography... incest and pedophilia."

Scott J. Bloch is another Bush appointee who has a problem with equality and civil rights, especially when applied to gay and lesbian Americans employed by the federal government.

On May 28, 1998, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13087 prohibiting discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation. Enforcement of that order fell to the Office of Special Counsel. From the OSC's official website: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency ... OSC's primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing." That's  "whistleblowing" about federal corruption as well as "prohibited personnel practices" (such as sexual harassment) perpetrated against federal employees.

In January 2004, George W. Bush's choice to head the Office of Special Counsel began his reign. Since then, Scott J. Bloch has not only ignored President Clinton's executive order - which the Bush administration said it supported and wanted continued - but Mr. Bloch has removed all protections for gay and lesbian federal employees and, by his actions, condoned and encouraged "prohibited personnel practices" against them. His record with "whistleblowers" is just as bad.

One of Mr. Bloch's first moves as Special Counsel - in February 2004 - was to remove from OSC complaint forms and its official web site all references to "sexual orientation." Is it any surprise that while at the University of Kansas, Bloch enrolled in the Integrated Humanities Program, a curriculum established in 1971 to counter the anti-war and women's movements and the growing demand for greater multiculturalism on campus? Is it any surprise that Mr. Bloch has bluntly refused to investigate any claims of "sexual harassment" involving gay or lesbian federal employees?

Is it any surprise that Mr. Bloch has ignored competitive recruitment practices by unilaterally hiring his investigators from among new graduates of Ave Maria Law School? Is it any surprise that Bloch hired Alan Hicks, his son's former headmaster, for a one-year, $112,000 position that produced one - that's one - four page memo? (Alan Hicks left his headmaster position after the cover-up of a predatory priest scandal had been exposed.)

In early October 2004, five Democratic members of Congress called on President Bush to "take the necessary action" against Mr. Bloch who, they correctly asserted, continues to refuse "to enforce anti-discrimination protections for federal workers [which] contradicts Bush administration policy to uphold former President Clinton's executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation."

Nothing happened. Indeed, Mr. Bloch's enforcement of whistleblower protection quickly came to match his enforcement of non-discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace. As of spring 2005, over 1000 cases involving whistleblower accusations and protection of employees from retaliation have been summarily dismissed.

Bloch continued his campaign against gay and lesbian federal employees, as Washington Bureau Chief for 365Gay.com Paul Johnson noted in his article "Administration Moves To Remove Gay Protections From Federal Labor Contracts." In several "contracts negotiated [with the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents thousands of federal government employees] over the past few months the list of categories that are protected has been replaced with the more nebulous phrase 'any class protected by law.' While the change will mean little to African Americans or other minorities, it effectively removes LGBT workers from being protected from being fired or harassed on the job." According to a report in GovExec.com, Witold Skwierczynski, the president of AFGE Council 220, charged the Social Security Administration with proposing the elimination of a clause in its labor contract "that allows gay, lesbian and bisexual workers to file discrimination grievances."

To date, nothing has changed. Bloch continues his crusade against gay and lesbian federal employees. In her May 25, 2005 article "Bush Special Counsel: Gay Federal Workers Have No Protections," Doreen Brandt of 365Gay.com's Washington Bureau reported that "The man in charge of protecting the civil rights of federal workers told a Senate Committee that he will not protect LGBT employees. Special counsel Scott J. Bloch was testifying about complaints his office has adopted an extreme conservative position and has reprimanded people in his own office who disagree with him."

Following his senate testimony, calls for Bloch's resignation increased. Chris Barron, political director for the GOP group Log Cabin Republicans, said, "Scott Bloch has made it clear that he is not enforcing the law and is openly defying the president; accordingly he should resign immediately." But so far the White House has had nothing to say about the Special Counsel's actions despite its April 2004 statement: "Longstanding federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation. President Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work."

Could it be that the White House has done nothing because it agrees with (encourages?) Bloch's actions, despite ordering OSC to enforce President Clinton's executive order? Strategic deceptions and lies have been integral parts of the Bush-Rove strategy since the beginning.

But deceptions and lies need supporters and cheerleaders. Both come in the form of the Taliban-like leaders of the evangelical Christian Right - such as Louis Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition and James Dobson of Focus on the Family - who proclaim they alone know what "God" wants (theocratically speaking) and how everyone should be and live. Like Scott J. Bloch, they and their organizations are dedicated to making sure gay and lesbian American citizens - and their families - have no social or legal recognition.

When the senate "bipartisan compromise" on Bush's judicial nominations was announced, Sheldon and Dobson went bananas:

"Of the seven Republicans who signed the compromise agreement, Sheldon said: 'They didn't have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority.'

"James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, which had been lobbying GOP senators to hold firm, expressed his 'disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment.' Come election day, he said, 'voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.'" (LA Times, May 24, 2005)

Interesting phrase: "betrayed their trust."

For decades Americans have placed their trust in the courts - especially the federal courts - to uphold their civil rights and enforce liberty, justice and equality for all. That trust in the courts was betrayed not by the senators who brokered the bipartisan compromise, but by George W. Bush who nominated and renominated only one kind of jurist, originalists, whose federalism poses a direct threat to many Americans.

Scott J. Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel betrayed the trust of all federal employees. What gay or lesbian employee would feel safe coming forward with a complaint? What "whistleblower" would feel safe coming forward with allegations when the Special Counsel himself is so demonstrably devious and corrupt?

Betrayal is also the modus operandi of the leaders of the Christian Right. They have betrayed the philosophy and message Yeshua of Nazareth in favor of their own political agenda and its vitriolic bile. Religion should be a source of comfort and inspiration, not the cesspool of bigotry and hate called for by evangelical Christian leaders such as Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

What's happened to "America"? (Sadly, that's a rhetorical question...)