New frame: Anti- judiciary campaign

[LuckyTheDog]

We should be careful not to get caught up in refuting the GOPer way of framing the "activist judge" issue. Merely by using that term, they are asserting that it can be assumed that judges are overstepping their authority. They then can frame themselves as "defenders of the Constitution" who want to "restore the balance of power." That is 100% crap.

Below is a new frame. I am sure that can be improved upon. But I think you'll see where I am going here:

"The right-wing ANTI-JUDICIAL MOVEMENT wants to radically remake and weaken the courts as part of a RADICAL AGENDA to impose a new order. Those who stand up to the anti-judicialists are the CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONALISTS who seek to PRESERVE THE ROLE of the courts as defined by the Constitution."

[Tux]

1. INeocons

They want to remove "activist judges" by replacing them with "activist judges" who are Evangelicals. All they want is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

If they want Christian fundies, I want, in my courts, Constitution fundamentalists.

[LuckyTheDog]

2. That is another approach...

...we also should point out that what they really want are judges who are "activist" in the way they want them to be.

[CatholicEdHead]

3. I always argue on other right wing board that

the judges are just doing their jobs and interpeting the laws on the books. I point out that the right wingers are pushing their own activist judges, just highly conservative ones.

[LuckyTheDog]

5. I think it is more sinister than that

I really think the aim here is to tear down our entire tradition of secular law and replace it with a "Bible-based" legal structure. And by that they really mean a politicized legal philosophy that would be whatever the right needs it to be when they need it. Because there is no real "Bible-based" legal tradition along the lines of, say English Common Law, the right-wingers will get to make up the rules as they go. Very convenient.

That's why I think it is appropriate to refer to them as "anti-judicial."

[renaissanceguy]

6. And we should also mention that these very judges

they want to impeach were put in by Reagan and Bush Sr.

These fundies are not conservatives, they are nutcase fascists.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15010804

[Nikki Stone 1]

4. This is an important enough idea to nominate it--which I did

We have GOT to stop using their terms.

[LuckyTheDog]

8. Thanks

I totally agree that framing is very important.

[jfern]

7. Let's hear it for framing

The GOP is very experienced at framing. It's good that more and more Democrats are learning about it.

[kodi]

9. 3 little words

marbury versus madison.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

[LuckyTheDog]

10. I have talked to GOPers...

...who are pretty open about saying that Marbury vs. Madison should be overturned! Can you believe that?

[bloom]

11. that is a good point

If people think of the country as being taken over by the corporations - with control of the executive and legislative branches - the judiciary branch is the only thing in the way.

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. We need to stick this to the top of the board

since the judicial appointments are coming up

[radfringe]

13. history repeating itself

in ancient times the Romans fed christians to the lions because the christian doctrine conflicted with the status quo

then there was the inquisitions - where "heritics" were killed/burned because ideas upset the theocracy

followed by witch trials - more killings for opposing the heirarchy

is history repeating itself again? you bet - although the "burnings" may be a metaphorical this time around -- the result is the same -- "kill" anyone that contradicts the rabid-reich policies...

[annabanana]

14. They are undermining Law and Order!!

They want to let the camp followers of the Radical Right storm into the hospices and riot in the streets!
If you don't like what the judge says..IGNORE HIM...

We pay the judges to judge, we have to accept their rulings...

[imenja]

15. anti-law or anti-law and order?

It is judges who are responsible for administering the law by issuing sentences. And we might also point out that Colombia is a country where violence against judges is rampant. Without an independent judiciary, a state cannot continue to function. Crime runs out of control. When Republicans sue reckless language suggesting violent action against judges, we might ask which model of law and order they intend to follow, Colombia's?