Conservative cites Stalin as a model

[TexasTiger 12,956]

And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty

By Dana Milbank

Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

A court spokeswoman declined to comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8-2005Apr8.html

And some of ya'll whine about Teddy's comments?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Wow, that's a stretch, even for her!

[Piglet 0]

"No man, no problem", eh? How subtle.

I hope they realize Justice Kennedy is not related to Teddy. He's a conservative from California who was chosen by that wacky marxist-Stalinist, Ronald Reagan.

Imagine the media frenzy if Hillary had praised Stalin's "ultimate solution" for those pesky judges who didn't agree with you...

[DKW 86 7,429]

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

Lets hope he wa paraphrasing and did not mean the "Death" of Kennedy.

[AURaptor 1,125]

"No man, no problem", eh?  How subtle.

I hope they realize Justice Kennedy is not related to Teddy. He's a conservative from California who was chosen by that wacky marxist-Stalinist, Ronald Reagan.

Imagine the media frenzy if Hillary had praised Stalin's "ultimate solution" for those pesky judges who didn't agree with you...

155015[/snapback]

No one praised Stalin here. This is what makes your asessment such a stretch The issue of impeachment of some judges was brought up....remove the judge, you remove the problem. That's the only meaning any coherent, logical thinking individual could arrive. To take it so far as to suggest any darker, sinister movite, is pure fanaticism.

[Tiger Al 0]

"No man, no problem", eh?  How subtle.

I hope they realize Justice Kennedy is not related to Teddy. He's a conservative from California who was chosen by that wacky marxist-Stalinist, Ronald Reagan.

Imagine the media frenzy if Hillary had praised Stalin's "ultimate solution" for those pesky judges who didn't agree with you...

155015[/snapback]

No one praised Stalin here. This is what makes your asessment such a stretch The issue of impeachment of some judges was brought up....remove the judge, you remove the problem. That's the only meaning any coherent, logical thinking individual could arrive. To take it so far as to suggest any darker, sinister movite, is pure fanaticism.

155055[/snapback]

Yes, it is fanaticism...

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

That's the only meaning any coherent, logical thinking individual could arrive.

You must've consulted with someone.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

Clever how the writer weaves a hint of doubt about Vieira's meaning, even after having just said that he was not advocating any violence. It's the subtle inference of " but it also has the potential to turn ugly " which implies that President Bush's nominees had better be confirmed - or else. At worst, the or else means impeachment, where as to a few anti-Bush zealots, it means a more Stalinistic 'end' .

You must've consulted with someone.

When you can't attack the message......

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

Clever how the writer weaves a hint of doubt about Vieira's meaning, even after having just said that he was not advocating any violence. It's the subtle inference of " but it also has the potential to turn ugly " which implies that President Bush's nominees had better be confirmed - or else. At worst, the or else means impeachment, where as to a few anti-Bush zealots, it means a more Stalinistic 'end' .

You must've consulted with someone.

When you can't attack the message......

155060[/snapback]

Unlike most "conservatives," the writer holds out the possibility that even the most likely conclusion might be wrong, i.e. he gives the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, your're left in the position of defending someone who cites Stalin as a source of inspiration and direction, and even under your suggested scenario you have a totalitarian approach, i.e. impeach a judge whose decision you don't like because you have the legislative power to do it. NO separation of powers, no room for differing opinions. It is amazing how far "conservatism" has descended since Goldwater.

[AURaptor 1,125]

....who cites Stalin as a source of inspiration and direction

There you go again. Merely making a casual reference to Stalin by uttering a vague quote suddenly equates to Stalin now being a source of inspiration and direction?? Granted, not the way I'd have gone about it, but it's safe to say that Joseph Stalin isn't a role model for any Conservative here in the U.S.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

....who cites Stalin as a source of inspiration and direction

There you go again. Merely making a casual reference to Stalin by uttering a vague quote suddenly equates to Stalin now being a source of inspiration and direction?? Granted, not the way I'd have gone about it, but it's safe to say that Joseph Stalin isn't a role model for any Conservative here in the U.S.

155068[/snapback]

There you go again denying reality. Casual reference?

Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin.

"Inspiration and direction" is spot on. It is amazing what you will defend and the lengths you will go to do it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

So, because Vieira ridicules Justice Kennedy for one who "upholds Marxist, Leninist,satanic principles.." , and then turns around and uses a quote from Stalin as a means of dealing w/ certain judges, that somehow becomes a source of inspiration and direction

Could it be that this guy knows a bit about Russian history? If Judges are so abhortent as to be compared to Marx and Lenin, it would seem a stretch to think that he'd then turn around and praise Stalin via one quote. Knee-jerk, reactionary liberals are taking his comment out of context so as to mean exactly what he said it didn't mean.

Granted, not the way I'd have gone about it,

I still think a better way to paint one's position could have been done than to quote Stalin, but even so, this is much ado about nothing.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

[Piglet 0]

There you go again. Merely making a casual reference to Stalin by uttering a vague quote suddenly equates to Stalin now being a source of inspiration and direction?? Granted, not the way I'd have gone about it, but it's safe to say that Joseph Stalin isn't a role model for any Conservative here in the U.S.

Not for his ideology, perhaps, but how about for his methods? Orwell would understand the modern Republican party perfectly...

"In the morning, the animals looked at the side of the barn where the Republican Statement of Values was. Again, some of the words looked a little different.

"It now read, "Thou shalt not spend more than your income unless absolutely necessary." Farther down. it now read, "Thou shalt not raise income taxes."

"A few of the animals began to mutter, but then the sheep burst into a chorus of "Conservatives good, Liberals baaaaaaaad!" And Napoleon said that further reductions in feed would be necessary, but that all good animals would understand, for surely they did not want the terrorists to get them, or for Farmer Democrat to come back..."

If not Stalin, how about Machiavelli? How about Hobbes?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Oh, I do love Calvin and Hobbs!

[AURaptor 1,125]

Orwell would understand the modern Republican party perfectly...

That's funny, as I see it exactly opposite in that it's the Dems who appear to have more in common w/ what Orwell wrote ...

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

[Tiger Al 0]

So, because Vieira ridicules Justice  Kennedy for one who "upholds Marxist, Leninist,satanic principles.." , and then turns around and uses a quote from Stalin as a means of dealing w/ certain judges, that somehow becomes  a source of inspiration and direction   

Could it be that this guy knows a bit about Russian history?  If Judges are so abhortent as to be compared to Marx and Lenin, it would seem a stretch to think that he'd then turn around and praise Stalin via one quote.  Knee-jerk, reactionary liberals are taking his comment out of context so as to mean exactly what he said it didn't mean. 

Granted, not the way I'd have gone about it,

I still think a better way to paint one's position could have been done than to quote Stalin, but even so, this is much ado about nothing.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

155095[/snapback]

What I find interesting about your position on this is that it's perfectly fine to compare judges to communists but to compare republican tactics to those of the Nazis is totally out of bounds.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What I find interesting about your position on this is that it's perfectly fine to compare judges to communists but to compare republican tactics to those of the Nazis is totally out of bounds.

Huh? :huh:

I think you should go get your reading and comprehension skills re-tested. I never once compared judges to communists. And if you can show where Republican tactics compare to those of the Nazis, by all means , have at it.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Could it be that this guy knows a bit about Russian history? If Judges are so abhortent as to be compared to Marx and Lenin, it would seem a stretch to think that he'd then turn around and praise Stalin via one quote. Knee-jerk, reactionary liberals are taking his comment out of context so as to mean exactly what he said it didn't mean.

You keep spinning it, brother. That's right, even call those who criticize him "reactionary". Stalin would be proud of both you and Vieira.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You keep spinning it, brother. That's right, even call those who criticize him "reactionary". Stalin would be proud of both you and Vieira.

There's just no 'there' there. Sorry, you have no case.