Death Solves All Problems

I thought that conservatives weren't actually serious about this whole destroy the nation's judiciary thing. I was wrong.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that [Supreme Court Justics Anthony] 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."...

 
 

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."...

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."

They aren't kidding, folks. And who better to invoke in the fight against Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries than old Iosef himself? Certainly, no one else has ever killed more of them...

Comments

[jholbo]

Like they always say: set an exterminationist-minded totalitarian dictator to catch an exterminationist-minded totalitarian dictator.

[abb1]

"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."

He also said: "cadres determine everything" (usually mistranslated as "cadres decide everything")

[abb1]

Stalin, that is, not Vieira.

[Doctor Memory]

In some ways, this seems almost logical to me. The GOP has spent the last 40 years perpetually running as the "outsider" party, railing against those decadent bozos in DC.

But now, of course, they are the decadent bozos in DC. So they've got a stark choice: actually deliver on their constituents' agendas (which would likely lead inevitably to their dethronement), or find another bogeyman to run against. And there ain't but one branch of government left that they can identify as the fifth column...

God knows what they'll do for an enemy once they've purged the judiciary. Maybe the AMA... we haven't had a good Doctor's Plot in a few decades...

[fnook]

Apologies for the non-constructive comment, but this type of conservative bloodlust makes me want to go out to the corner of Connecticut and M and engage in some no-holds-barred physical combat with every friggin Republican I can find.

[Keith]

They'll get to the doctors, of course. But first, the Judges, followed by the trial lawyers, then "The Liberal Media." Once there are no legal resources and no independant media left to protest to, they'll be able to take down doctors, scientists and academics without anyone complaining or fighting back.

[Russell Arben Fox]

You know, I keep getting into this argument with a friend of mine, which basically boils down to how I think progressive politics ought to accommodate, even incorporate, important elements of the collective religious perspective which has wrongly allowed the Republican party over the last few decades to claim for itself a moral authenticity which the Democrats supposedly do not share. My friend listens to me, nods sympathetically, and then responds, in essence, "Yes, but this stuff they believe makes them crazy."

He keeps winning the argument.

[Anderson]

I knew they missed the Soviets---the nostalgia in the Post article is touching---but I never guessed they wanted to BE the Soviets.

I mean, how do you attack Justice Kennedy for "Marxist, Leninist" (I omit "satanic") principles, and then cite Stalin as your inspiration?

[Doctor Memory]

Anderson: I think this is what passes for intentional irony among the Schlafly set. (But I may be over-optimistic.)

[abb1]

Michael Lind writes - describing a different group:

At least Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies have been consistent. Since the Cold War ended, they have exaggerated American power in the same way that they exaggerated Soviet power during the Cold War. As if to prove the old adage that people come to resemble their enemies, these former cold warriors treat the United States as a twin of the Soviet Union -- a military empire contemptuous of international law, with satellites instead of allies, justifying wars in its spheres of influence by appeals to ideology ("democracy" rather than "socialism"). In the form of the concentration camps for detainees in Cuba, Iraq and elsewhere run by Donald Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's Pentagon, the neoconservatives even provided the United States with a gulag of its own.

So, the commies had their gulag, Wolfowitz-style small-d democrats do now, conservatives/traditionalists want one too. How else are you going to deal with "satanic foreign law Marxist-Leninists" aka "the worst of the worst" aka "the enemies of the people"?

[Tad Brennan]

And did you catch the proposal to have "mass impeachments" of federal judges, at this same nutty conference on the previous day? Check here:
http://nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html

"Mass impeachments" of judges. Nice image. I think Stalin would have liked that, too. Or maybe the Rove/Bush/DeLay crew would approach it more in the Cultural Revolution vein, you know, putting dunce caps on their heads, re-education sessions and the like.

The radical Republican theocons are at least doing us a real favor by showing their true colors these days. Now we just need to get these stories spread into the general electorate's consciousness. (I figure posting on Belle Waring's blog should pretty much accomplish that).

[Matt]

I'm glad I stopped watching. The decision came right after observing the crazed, frozen look in one of the participant's eyes.

[catfish]

"The radical Republican theocons are at least doing us a real favor by showing their true colors these days."

They've been doing it for quite some time, forever really. Of course Phyllis Schafly and co will never be elected to anything, but that is not their role. Their job is to make Crony-capitalist Republicans like the current president seem moderate by comparison. It works. The center of US politics is now occupied by Right Wingers who stop short of demanding purges and show trials.

[djw]

That sound you just heard was the blood vessel in John Cole's forehead popping.

[Steve]

First, I was going to go without commenting. I mean, saying that 'Death solves all problems' and accusing the Republicans of wanting to kill of judges, in spite of the fact that they don't want to kill off judges, they want to impeach them ("Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment.", and "And did you catch the proposal to have "mass impeachments" of federal judges, at this same nutty conference on the previous day?"). I thought, "oh well, those nutty liberals, exaggerating for effect again." But then I came across the post ON THIS SITE, THREE POSTS BELOW THIS ONE.

"Did you ever have that "must kill the president" feeing? I had that, today."

So you accuse the Republicans of wanting to kill their enemies in spite of the fact that they clearly didn't do so, and also in spite of the fact that very recently you yourself have expressed the desire to do so?

And you are the intellectual elite of your party?

Sheesh.

Steve

[Anthony]

I nominate Belle for both "intellectual elite" and "life and soul" of the party.
However, would it be churlish to point out to Steve that there is a difference between (a) humorous wishing of death-to-the-President, and (b) actual moves to limit or destroy the independence of the judiciary by those holding political power?

[Matt Weiner]

Actually, I think it would be churlish to point out that, though Belle's comment was irresponsible, she is a person of no political influence whatsoever; whereas the comments hinting at violence toward judges were made at a conference attending by some U.S. Congresspeople, after a U.S. Senator blamed "judicial activism"--the very thing that Vieira is railing against!--for the murders (in separate incidents) of a judge and of a judge's family. So the GOP has been engaging in violent ideation with respect to judges. Does the phrase "playing with fire when you don't know fire is hot" ring a bell?

It would be super-mega-churlish to point out the post Steve is quoting isn't three posts below this one. And I am a super-mega-churl.