It had not taken the American "progressives" or
political "Left" long to figure out that it was not to Congress they
were to go, but instead to the federal courts in having their
political-cultural-moral-spiritual agenda enforced as the foundational
worldview or religion, in opposition to the traditional Christian worldview –
one which the "progressives" wanted gone, gone, gone. Congress still responded to the will of the
vast majority of the American people, registered in their right to vote in
defense of their fundamental values. But
Leftists knew that they could have a simple decree by a handful of judges
effectively revise the law of the land completely in their ideological favor, and
that there was no recourse available to the American people once the lawyers in
black robes had decided to favor the "progressive" views of those
self-enlightened Leftists. The rulings
of the federal judges were the absolute law of the land, Congress
notwithstanding.
The U.S. Supreme Court comes
up with two key openings for Bush to fill.
Will he appoint conservatives – to tip the ideological balance of the bench?
Republicans are hopeful;
Democrats are fearful.
President Bush announces
his nomination of John Roberts
as the new Supreme Court Chief
Justice
John G. Roberts Jr. was sworn
in September 29, 2005
as the
17th chief justice
of the United States only hours after winning
Senate approval with a solid
78-22 vote.
A much bigger issue occurs
with the retirement of Justice
Sandra Day O'Conner –
traditionally a swing voter
who gave
the liberal side of the bench support on key issues.
If Bush
replaces her with
a conservative, the liberals will no longer
dominate the Court
Judge Samuel Alito during
the 3rd day of his hearing
Judge Alito
hearing
Senator Kenneday addressing
Alito at hearing
January 31, 2006 – Alito
is confirmed by a party-line vote of
58 – 42 (with only 4 Democrats siding with
Alito)
| NEWDOW HEADS TO COURT TO UNDERCUT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE |
And thus in the year 2000
Michael Newdow sued the U.S. Congress over the phrase "under God"
contained in the Pledge of Allegiance, claiming that this was harmful
to his daughter. He naturally went to
the 9th Circuit Court (the American West Coast and Hawaii) – where "progressives"
knew they could always count on great ideological favor.
Newdow speaking at the Atheist Alliance International Convention
in Long Beach, California, 2008
And indeed the court agreed with Newdow. However, this decision stirred a major
reaction, including even in the U.S. Congress.
Then the 9th Circuit Court bent over backwards to help Newdow, awarding
him custody over his daughter, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 dismissed
his case when it was discovered that only his mother, a Christian, originally
had such custody – and thus he had no right to present his case. Newdow then tried again in 2005, again
getting another 9th Circuit Court decision in his favor. This time the Becket Fund fought both Newdow
and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that was supporting
Newdow. Newdow went from court to court,
fighting case after case not just about the pledge but also the use of prayer
and the wording of the presidential oath at presidential inaugurations, both Bush's and Obama's in fact.
But he was increasingly finding the decisions not going in his favor.
| JUDGE JONES DECIDES FOR AMERICA ITS FUNDAMENTAL WORLDVIEW |
But a decision that hit the Christian world hard was the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District case. Eleven parents,
supported by the ever-vigilant ACLU, took the Dover (Pennsylvania)
school district to the federal District Court of Judge John Jones. The plaintiffs complained that a required
reading of a short statement – recommending 9th grade students to also take
into consideration (on their own, not in class) the Intelligent Design (ID)
viewpoint that challenges Darwinism – violated the earlier 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme
Court decision. This earlier decision
had clearly outlawed the teaching of the doctrine of "creationism," a
Christian, and thus not scientifically "Secular," view on the origins
of the universe. And Intelligent Design
was simply another form of creationism – and thus automatically "unconstitutional."
Judge
Jones knew exactly how he wanted the case to turn out and would not let those
supporting the ID viewpoint bring in expert witnesses. He simply decreed that ID was merely a sneak
attack in favor of creationism – and slapped a $1 million fine on the Dover
School Board as a lesson to anyone else who would attempt such "breathtaking
inanity" (his words). He intended his case to be a landmark case. And indeed it was in the way it made very
clear how the federal courts served as a highly authoritarian instrument by
which a small group of people are able not only to impose their view on others,
but to leave those others devastated should they dare to resist such
authoritarianism. So much for "democracy"
and First Amendment Freedoms ("Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.") This was
classic authoritarian prohibiting of the free exercise of the people's
religious rights ... a prohibition making it not only illegal but highly
punishable just to mention that there are other viewpoints than the
court-certified and thus "established" Darwinist view concerning the
creation of the universe, and in general the court-backed Darwinist or Secular
(atheist) worldview on all matters concerning life on this planet.
Go on to the next section:
Miles
H. Hodges
