The title of this two-day conference — Confronting the Judicial War on Faith — is very revealing about those on the right and the overreaching hyperbole they use to "rally the troops". There is no WAR, kids. And out of several thousands verdicts and decisions handed down in courtrooms across the country each day, only a few of them could be characterized as going "against faith". Just as many, if not more, could be characterized as going "in favor of faith". Why don’t you want to talk about those? (Could it be because then your fake "war" won’t seem so much like a "war"?)

And of course, what is the meta-point here? Is it your position that judges should follow a pro-faith agenda? Do you really think that is in their job description? And if the answer is "yes", please tell me whose faith they are supposed to follow: yours? What about theirs?

These are the questions the angry right doesn’t ask. Because in reality, they know (and now, so do you) that the courts are not impose its views on faith; faith (i.e., religion) is trying to impose itself into courts — not only in terms of things like the Ten Commandments, but in actual decisions.

In other words, the attack — the volleys of ammunition in this so-called "war" — comes from the religious right, not the judicial branch of government. The religious right is playing offense, not defense. They are fighting, not (as the website suggests) "fighting back". It is the religious right assaulting the court system, not a court system "assaulting Judeo-Christian morality".

To suggest otherwise is to simply lie.

And indeed, what the right wants is not an end to judicial activism. They want judicial activism. They want pro-faith judicial activism. How many dozens of judges came down against the religious right in the Schiavo matter? Over thirty? That should indicate to the religious right that the law was against them, and the judges were merely applying the law. That is their agenda — applying the law. They have not set out, en masse, as an army, to hurt you. And your (ersatz) paranoia about judges is laughable.

Now, normally the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration would not merit any attention, but this group is made up of heavy hitters, including Falwell and Schlafly. They have $$$$$.

So what was their two-day judge-bashing festival like? Well, according to one report, there was a lot of anger, confusion and sadness at how the Republicans backpeddled on judiciary-related issues (like Schiavo) when it became clear that the vast majority of the public was against them. (This should be a hint to the Judeo-Christian Council that they represent a minority of Americans, not a majority of them, including Judeo-Christians).

Oddly enough, much of the wrath (these Judeo-Christians have a bottomless pit of wrath, it seems) fell upon conservative Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy (a Reagan appointee). According to WaPo, members at the conference decided that he should be — get this — impeached.

You know why? Because (among other things) he sided with the majority on the court for striking down Texas’ anti-sodomy statute. That’s right. Kennedy — and only Kennedy — should be impeached because he took the position that government cannot and should not regulate the manner in which two consenting adults fuck. Apparently, the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration thinks that the original Constitution (you know, before judicial activists started pissing all over it) allowed governments to come into your bedroom and make those kind of decisions on your behalf — because you are too much of a heathen to know "good" from "bad", and "right" from "wrong".

Edwin Vieira, the lawyer who suggested that Kennedy be impeached because he struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law, also quoted from — get this — Joseph Stalin. Specifically, he thought that Stalin’s "bottom line" solution of "no man, no problem" would work well with the Supreme Court.

Yes, Stalin. The genocidal dictator of the Soviet Union.

Of course, Vieira also thinks that paper money is unconstitutional. So… clearly a whacko.