Of course, you are quoting. So am I, then, in today’s WaPo lead article on stopactivistjudges.com leader Rick Scarborough:

“While Christian right leaders such as Scarborough employ the usual Washington special-interest tactics — collaring lawmakers, issuing press releases, appearing on political talk shows — their real power rests in their unique access to millions of voters “who happen to go to church,” as Scarborough puts it. “It’s straight to the heart of people from men and women they trust,” he said.”

Yikes.

“How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?”>

Funny that for all their talk of blasphemy they feel free to slander God with impunity. Just don’t criticize the church or the “people of reason faith”. That would be blasphemy.

Assuming Roe were struck down today, abortion would still be legal in a dozen states or so. And some interesting discussion would ensue in the other states relative to the responsibility the state should take on for “unwanted” babies if abortions are banned. That sort of thing could seriously shakeup welfare laws.

It’s that whole “culture of life” thing.

(And babies will be abandoned instead of being given to homes that want them.) there is a no-fault law that a baby can be left at any fire station or emergency room with impunity, no charges will be filed against the mother/father.

If the abortion question were left to the states, most would allow it today and judicial appointments wouldn’t be so contentious.

Of course, that line of reasoning would invalidate some drug prohibition laws, too, and in general I don’t have a problem with that. The courts do make mistakes; it’s an imperfect system we have.

There’s a good op-ed today in the NY Times that gives a bit of background on the appearance of Federal circuit courts. It’s good reading.

There’s actually quite a bit of controversy about the constitutionality of abortion laws. Even the Supreme Court that handed down Roe v. Wade reversed itself and found a completely different justification in Griswold v. Connecticut. When an issue such as this is not clearly constitutional or not, it’s best to leave it to the legislature.

I think it’s trivial to argue with it:

When the legislature makes a law that is unconstitutional, such as laws that ban all abortions, even in the life of a mother, it is well within the court’s purview to overturn it and render the law null and void.

There is no policy without law, nor law without policy implications. Policy is actually shaped and executed by all 3 branches of government then.

One can make the parallel arguments- hate to do the Godwin’s law thing, but the historical parallel is undeniable-about the Germans who gave the Nazis enough of a plurality to basically provide the executive branch with unlimited power, “correcting the excesses” of the pesky legislative and judicial branches there.

Actually, the tendency of democracy to fall sway to demagoguery is exactly why we put braking mechanisms such as giving the Senate almost unlmited sway in deciding its rules.

Finally, they may be organizing votes, but they’re organizing in other ways too, and some of it’s not so pretty. I just don’t get the idea of going to church to see a “pastor” who is the unfortunate result of over-consumption of pork products foam at the mouth to get a rise of rage out of his congregation, such as the way John Hagee does. Reminds me too much of Triumph of the Will.