Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

I’ve enjoyed listening to POI for several months now. The podcasts are informative and stimulate the thinking processes. However, the Tabash interview was a little over the top. I certainly agree with the separation of church and state and much of what Tabash discussed is reasonable. Two points, at least, must be addressed: First, that were a conservative supreme court justice to be appointed to the bench the famous court decision ‘Griswold v Connecticut’ would be reversed. This 1965 decsion came to grips with an antiquated 17th century law whereby couples(even legally married) could not use birth control. There are jurists who believe that this case was brought to trial by Planned Parenthood to ultimately test the question of privacy at the supreme court level. The state would have nullified the antiquated law, but planned parenthood was looking for a confrontation to settle the privacy issue. Without Griswold, Roe has no traction. It is highly unlikely, under any circumstances, that a court would be willing to restrict the use of birth control.
Second, the idea that Justice Bork is a “Fascist” has no merit. One can disagree with his “Original Understanding” of how the Constitution should be interpreted, but Fascism is not a word that comes to mind. 

In any event, Mr. Tabash’s podcast was enlightening, but with hyperbole aside, I doubt that we face reverting to the “dark ages” should a conservative jurist be appointed to the court.

Edward Tabash is a great person to have on POI and he always gives a clear, thought-provoking discussion. Thanks.

From the section with Toni Van Pelt and then the interview with Tabash, I’ll like to encourage CFI to support a broad area of consensus in the area of science and secularism, and not needlessly promote what can be stereotyped as left-wing humanism. 

I am not so sure that the issue of gay rights is so clearly a religious issue as ‘creationism’; there are many liberal Christians who support gay rights. I think it includes a we-them prejudice thing, and Tabash actually supported this view by drawing a parallel between the gay marriage issue and the miscegnation laws that once were on the books.  I agree that the most vocal opponents attempt a religious justification but this also might be a convenient route for bigots to look for support.

Tabash makes a good case for continued concern over Supreme Court nominations.  However, I also thought he overstated his case and was polarizing.

The idea that Justice Bork is a “Fascist” has no merit. One can disagree with his “Original Understanding” of how the Constitution should be interpreted, but Fascism is not a word that comes to mind.

The word’Fascist’ has been devalued by being tossed around the way it has by some of the more mindless people on the left.  Nevertheless, Bork has attitudes that are certainly associated with Fascism.  For example, he was asked at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing whether he thought that a theatre showing pronographic movies but with no external indications of what was being shown and not open to the general public could be suppressed by the law.  His answer was “yes,” because, as he said, it affected the thoughts and values of the community.  But isn’t free speech all about affecting the thoughts and values of the community?

I found Mr. Tabash’s presentation and ideas to be hysterical.  And not in the sense of being funny.  This country has survived many, many incompetent leaders and supreme court justices (the majority of these incompetents being left-leaning), and will continue to do so in the future.  I, for one, would appreciate a little more clear thinking, with at least some pretense at balance.  More and more, it seems to me that the Point of Inquiry podcast is becoming very political.  Political is fine, up to a point, but intelligent people can be found on both sides of most issues.  When only one side is presented, it becomes boring and meaningless to even listen.

I thought Tabash’s statements were well reasoned.  It’s unfortunate that the issue of church state separation has become divided along partisan lines, but that’s the reality of it.

Stated intent and past performance is a reasonable (not hysterical) basis to conclude that the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates and Republican leadership in Congress would act to undermine Church State separation, and that the 2008 Democratic Party candidates and Democratic leadership in Congress would not.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:
—————————————————————————————————-
- John McCain scores a 33% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (notably among the best of the Republican Party leadership, good for him, still not particularly promising for us).

McCain deserves special attention because he’s the apparent Republican nominee. McCain has stated: “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. [...] I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”

- In September 2007, McCain said that “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation”

- Furthermore, McCain was an active advocate for the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork
(admittedly, the politics that are behind these nominations are sometimes unclear and you usually don’t know for sure what you’re going to get (e.g. you get Scalia one time and O’Connor the next), but Bork!?!?! ... no one could claim they didn’t know what he was about. AMong other things, Bork was a Bible literalist and Creationist.)

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP:
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
if the Republican Party manages to get back the majority of Congress, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Jon Kyl, and Mitch McConnell will control the nation’s legislative agenda:

- Roy Blunt scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- John Boehner scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Jon Kyl scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Mitch McConnell scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP:
————————————————————————
- Harry Reid scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Steny Hoyer scores a 83% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Nancy Pelosi scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:
————————————————————————
- Barack Obama scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Hillary Clinton scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Regarding Tabash’s comments about prior constitutional decisions being reheard and reversed—is there a precedent for that? How is it brought to the court again?

Some of Tabash’s comments were disturbing especially where it comes to the Supreme Court.  In calling for getting a liberal majority back so that cases can be brought back and overturned, he is setting a dangerous precedent.  He is advocating judicial activism.  The problem with activism is that it works both ways.  Unleashing a liberal activist court will eventually result in a reversal.  The biggest problem with activism is that the justices are nine unelected people appointed for life. 

An area where this may be of interest to the people on this forum is genetic research/engineering.  If you don’t like Bush’s stand on stem cell research, he’s gone in 4 or 8 years at most.  The Supreme Court majority can stay intact for decades.  At least with Congress and the president, there can be debate and input by interested parties, political pressure exerted on elected officials, etc.  With the Supreme Court, it’s a few briefs and lawyers arguing legal points, sometimes without regard to the impact of a decision on the “real world.”  Do we really want the Supreme Court becoming a super legislature and deciding issues about stem cell research?  I don’t. 

And Robert Bork is not a fascist.  Being a literalist is not a bad thing when it comes to a judge, it is a legitimate and intellectually valid legal theory.  It means they read the Constitution and interpret it as written not as their personal whims may dictate.  At its heart the Constitution is a contract between government and the people.  It is not a “living document” it is a cold dead piece of paper, a contract that clearly defines our rights, governmental powers and limitations.  Whether he is a Biblical literlaist is irrelevant as long as he’s not using the Bible to interpret the Constitution. 

Dick Springer: in response to your post, I think you left out an important part of Bork’s analysis.  I have not seen the testimony to which you refer, but Bork would probably have opined that pornography is not protected speech.  Not all speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.  There are a number of people, both conservative Christians and liberal womens rights advocates who believe pornography is not speech.  If it’s not protected speech then the deliterious effects of the unprotected speech can be assessed in determining whether to shut down the theater.