A Pilgrim’s Digression

Frist urges end to nominee filibuster

It’s a tough time to be a judge in the United States. Not only do they have to fear retaliation from people they have locked up, but they have to be wary, too, of the politician with the knife poised at their back.

The lead story in the news today was Bill Frist’s tape-recorded appearance before a Christian “anti-filibuster” rally, a rally which was broadcast to a purported 61 million homes courtesy of James Dobson’s Family Research Council. None of the reports I’ve read seem to ask the obvious question, which is, “What the hell has the filibuster to do with the gospel?” The rally is billed as a “justice rally,” but given the subject matter, one supposes that God’s justice is not the kind of justice these men and politicians of God are contemplating.

The Washington Post reporter writes that Frist’s comments were mild compared to ones made by the Christian leaders in attendance. Frist made no overt religious references, for example, which must have seemed rather odd to people gathered in a church—a 6,000 member Baptist church—to hear members of the clergy preach about the evils of the filibuster. Other speakers were apparently not so restrained as Frist.

Charles Colson wins the cigar for the most blatant exaggeration when he says that by holding up judicial nominees, Democrats “are destroying the balance of power, which was a vital Christian contribution to the founding of our nation.” Disregard for a moment that obstructing nominees for cabinet posts and judiciary seats is a time-honored tradition of both parties. And disregard the fact that logically and ethically, a minority party ought to have obstructionist powers, if the balance of powers is to be maintained. Disregard all that and focus on Colson’s assertion that the balance of powers was a vital Christian contribution. A historian might let it slide when politicians claim that the Founding Fathers were Christians; but this is the first I’ve heard that the balance of powers has its origin in Christianity.

As for the pot calling the kettle black, always a prime feature of Conservative critiques of “activist [insert opponent's name here],” James Dobson outdoes himself on that score. He could be describing himself when he says that judges “are unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they’re out of control.”

The Republican attack on the judiciary is really pretty stunning to me. One critic quoted in the Post has it right when he says it’s as if Republicans cannot rest until all three branches of government are firmly in their grasp.

I recall a Political Science professor in High School, a Republican no less, telling my class that the judiciary was the last line of defense against tyranny precisely because it was unaccountable and its judges unelected. The tyranny of the mob could not influence the judiciary; the tyranny of a dictator, or a dictatorial Congress, could not influence the judiciary without completely subverting the Constitution. In his view, the Supreme Court was a council of nine accountable only to our Constitution; they were protectors of our liberty.

That was in 1991, however. Much has changed. Perhaps even my old teacher has changed his point of view, assuming he is still a Republican. For one thing, I do not think in 1991, anyone could have predicted the way religion has been interwoven into the fabric of the Republican party. I remember in 1988, when Pat Robertson ran for President, his campaign was a joke. Bush the Elder always seemed uncomfortable appealing to religious Conservatives, as well, as if there were something unseemly about making himself out to be the Candidate of Faith and his opponent as the devil’s mercenary.

When religion and politics climb into bed, everyone gets screwed. What is really most frightening is that there are apparently so many people in these Un-tied States who see nothing amiss in our supposed “pastors” using their pulpit to preach about the filibuster and accuse opponents of the Republican party of waging an undeclared war on “people of faith.” We have crossed a dangerous line in this country in which politicians do not stint at utilizing the prejudices of the religious to achieve and retain power. Question is, is religious prejudice a more powerful motivator for the faithful than fear of religious prejudice for the faithfully humble?

We should know as early as the 2006 election whether Republicans have overreached or not.