Tony Perkins: Don't Give Money to the RNC

Citing concerns about the recent use of RNC spent $2,000.00 at a depraved club near Los Angeles, Tony Perkins (head of the Family Research Council) told people not to donate to the RNC. In the letter he expressed his dissapointment that the RNC is happy about their use of Ted Olson for their campaign finance lawsuit. Ted Olson is also fighting hard in California to overturn Prop 8. Mark DeMoss has already closed his checkbook to the RNC after problems earlier this year.

GOP congressional leaders seem to be disenchanted with the current RNC leadership as well. The RNC is having a hard time with fundraising already. If Michael Steele can't fundraise and work with the congressional leadership, why is he chairman again?

(I am not advocating removing Michael Steel from chairman, just curious what the answer to that question is.)

Two Different Views of the Judiciary

Yesterday we had two major announcements concerning the courts. One was the California Supreme Court 6-1 ruling on Proposition 8, and the other was the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as Obama's nominee for the supreme court. These two events display two completely different views on how the judiciary should act.

The California Supreme Court ruling upheld Proposition 8 and allowed the marriages performed before Proposition 8 was adopted to stand. In the decision, the court acknowledged that it's job is to interpret the laws, not inject their own political and personal opinions into the decisions. On page 3 of the majority opinion the court lays out this principle.

In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases... our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

In contrast President Obama's supreme court nominee seems to believe that the courts are a policy making body and that you can and should use your own personal experiences to make this policy.

"The court of appeals is where policy is made."

In a quote that is becoming more popular Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Here we have a judge who believes judges should make policy based on their personal experiences. (This New York Times article has a number of other interesting quotes from Judge Sotomayor.)

This is distinctly different from the view offered by the California Supreme Court that the courts should just interpret the law and can not inject their personal opinions.

When John Roberts was nominated he compared being a judge to an umpire accurately calling balls and strikes. Do we want an umpire who will call balls and strikes, or one who will make up new laws on the spot. That is the choice we have in this supreme court nomination battle, and it is the distinct difference between the judicial philosophies of the Bush and Obama whitehouses.

For an excellent article comparing the Sotomayor nomination to the Miguel Estrada hearings by Mason Conservative, click here.

Tyranny by Another Name

On March 4th news that the Virginia state central committee was pressuring Jeff Frederick to resign as RPV chairman hit the blogosphere.  The following day the California Supreme Court held oral arguments on Proposition 8.  While most would argue that these two events have nothing in common, I would like to disagree.

Last November California voters approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  In a state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, this measure passed by 52.1% with Barack Obama on the ballot.  After Prop 8 passed the opponents of the measure argued that a majority of the people have no right to take away the rights of the minority.  They argued they have a right to homosexual marriage.  If this is true the measure clearly removed that "right".  In an attempt to win on this argument they appealed the measure to the courts which resulted in the oral arguments on Thursday.  If the California State Supreme Court overturns the voice of the people, it will be yet another example of judicial tyrrany.  Judicial tyranny occurs when the courts override a decision of the legislature or the people for political reasons, and not because it is legally unconstitutional.  Conservatives would argue that Kelo vs. New London and, the two biggest thorns in the sides of social conservatives, Roe vs. Wade and Texas vs. Lawrence are examples of judicial tyranny.  Judicial tyranny occurs when unelected judges make the law instead of the people and their elected representatives.

In California we are faced with the possibility that a few judges will of over five million voters will be overturned.  In Virginia we are faced with the possibility that sixty plus members of the state central committee will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots at the 2008 RPV State Convention.  The last convention was attended by over 4,000 activists from across this commonwealth.  Over the course of the campaign they were presented with two different visions for the RPV and were able to vote on the vision they agreed with.  The Virginia grassroots overwhelmingly supported Jeff Frederick for chairman of the RPV.  Instead of respecting that fact, members of state central have been opposing Jeff Frederick at every turn, and now it appears that in under a month a little over sixty party insiders will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots as expressed last May.  We went to Richmond last May to make our voices heard, and we thought they were heard.  Now the party leadership says we don't care what you said we will ignore your voice.  It makes you wonder why we should have voted at all last year.

In California the voters are faced with the possibility that their votes for prop 8 last November will be overturned by a couple judges.  In Virginia Republican politics, we are faced with the possibility that our vote at last year's convention will be overturned.

This may not be judicial tyranny, but that is only because judges aren't involved.