Thursday, March 31, 2011
In God (and Congress) We Trust
So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
When just the art of being kind
Is all this sad world needs.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox, The World’s Need
The good news is that Congress can multitask. In that respect it resembles the 21st Century adolescent. As with adolescents, however, it is not always clear that Congress does it well. At a time when the country faces the prospect of a shutdown because of the inability of members of Congress to work together, some of its members have introduced a bill that in significance, equals House Bill 1 that promised to repeal the Health Care law passed in 2010 and House Bill 3 that redefined rape for purposes of preventing federal funding for abortions. A group of House Members who are probably not involved in trying to solve the budget problems and, therefore, have lots of time on their hands while that particular problem is being unresolved, got together over drinks and decided to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 13. Although not on the level of repealing health care or redefining rape, it is important in its own way, just as reading the Constitution of the United States aloud on the floor of the House when it first convened was important for reasons more significant than simply proving that the participants knew how to read. House Congressional Resolution 13 defends four words that its proponents feel need defending-“In God We Trust.”
Described as a “motto”, it was first adopted in 1956 when the cold war was flourishing and Congress felt it needed a motto to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union which did not, of course, trust in God but in Karl Marx or someone like him. The adoption was a joint resolution of Congress and was signed on July 30, 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The reason for the introduction of the HCR 13 may lie in the dissent in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly. The dissenting justices in that case observed, when commenting on what would constitute a state sanctioning of religion, that the words “In God We Trust” had lost their religious significance. They said that “such practices as the designation of “In God We Trust” as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of “ceremonial deism,” protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” It is likely that Congressman Randy Forbes (R.Va.) the author of the resolution was leafing through Supreme Court opinions in his spare time and came across that phrase. He decided that if “In God We Trust” was said by a United States Supreme Court Justice to be nothing more than a “ceremonial deism, he would fix that even though the Court’s observation was made 25 years earlier.
The goal of the Resolution is to reaffirm “’In God We Trust’” as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.” The first “whereas” clause acknowledges that those four words are the official motto of the United States. This resolution is, however, considerably better than the one that is already on the books having been signed by President Eisenhower. It recites a litany of instances in which the citizens have turned to God for succor even though many of those citizens may in fact not believe in the same God as Randy and his colleagues. It observes that the words appear in the National Anthem, over the entrance to the Senate Chamber and above the Speaker’s rostrum in the House Chamber. It further says that “if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured. ” Although unsaid, given the context the word religion clearly refers only to Christianity. The resolution ends with a statement that Congress not only reaffirms the motto but “encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”
Ronald A. Lindsay is the president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. He objects to the resolution and says: “The American people should be free to come to their own conclusions on religious issues without prodding, oversight, or manipulation by the government. God-if there is one-does not need the government as a publicist.” He’s right about God but overlooks the fact that Randy and his 64 House co-sponsors need the Resolution for publicity purposes. Defense of the Almighty, they hope, will relieve them from any blame for failing to address the more substantive issues facing the country. The next election will tell them whether they were right.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The New Newt
Earl of Sandwich: “‘ ’Pon my honor, Wilkes, I don’t know whether you’ll die on the gallows or of the pox.”
Wilkes: “That must depend, my Lord, upon whether I first embrace your Lordship’s principles, or your Lordship’s mistresses.”
—John Wilkes, Sir Charles Petrie, The Four Georges
Newt Gingrich is like a computer-there’s always a newer version. In the case of computers, others create it for them. Newt does it for himself. His proposed visit with John Hagee who is about to become Newt’s new best friend will surely involve a disavowal at some future time.
For many years Newt has been criticized by those who remember that to arrive at his present state of marital bliss to Catholic chorister, Callista Bistek, he had to jump over two other wives. Jackie Battley, his first, was his high school math teacher to whom he confided his plans for a divorce so he could marry Marianne (with whom he was sleeping), as Jackie lay in hospital recovering from cancer surgery. Some years later he came home to Marianne, after he had given a speech on family values in Erie Pennsylvania. Marianne, knowing of an affair he was then having with soon to be wife number three, Callista, asked him: “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?” “It doesn’t matter what I do,” he replied, “people need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.” They were divorced and he married Callista. Now we are informed that his failed marriages were not due to design flaws in Newt but to an excessive love of country.
In an interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network, he said: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” That takes care of infidelity. And if it weren’t enough, he also converted to Catholicism in 2009, which is a bit like putting icing on the cake. In an interview with Dan Gilgoff in God and Country, Newt described a number of things that precipitated his conversion such as seeing how happy Pope Benedict looked when he visited the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, describing him as “a very loving, engaged, happy person.” Concluding his interview he said in further explanation for his conversion: “And part of me is inherently medieval. I resonate to Gothic churches and the sense of the cross in a way that is really pre-modern.” If it’s pre-modern he wants, he’s found it in John Hagee, (a preacher who has ideas that pass most understanding) with whom Newt plans to meet in order to burnish his credentials among religious conservatives.
The Catholic Church has historically been one of John Hagee’s targets. In his book, Jerusalem Countdown he says that “[M]ost readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” (According to one report he has since apologized for that passage.) In 2008, when John McCain briefly courted Mr. Hagee, Catholic League President, Bill Donohue described Hagee as an “inveterate bigot” for calling the Catholic Church “the Great Whore, an apostate church” among other things. Mr. Donohue and Mr.Hagee have now made peace. Mr. Donohue said that “As far as I’m concerned, Hagee and I are on friendly terms today. . . . I’m convinced that he turned the corner.” Knowing that Mr. Donohue thinks Mr. Hagee has gone around the corner should give Newt comfort since as a newcomer to the church it would be unseemly for him to so quickly embrace someone who has consistently vilified it. The Church has not been Mr. Hagee’s only target.
After Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Hagee was interviewed by Terry Gross on National Public Radio’s Fresh Air. In that interview he observed that Hurricane Katrina arrived on the very day that a group of homosexuals had planned to have a parade in New Orleans. He told Terry that: “I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are-were-recipients of the judgment of God for that. . . . And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”
Of course, Mr. Hagee is not without a whimsical side. In a fundraiser that his church conducted in 2006 to sponsor a trip for students, the fundraiser was announced as a “slave sale. The students were to auction off their services to parishioners. The announcement said: “Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone (Hagee’s church)” and concluded with a teaser saying: “Make plans to come and go home with a slave.” In an interview he apologized but attributed the commotion to pressure to be “politically correct.”
I’m sure Newt has an explanation for why he’d seek the blessing of someone who attacks his new spiritual home and otherwise seems to be devoid of common sense. It probably has to do with how “passionately he feels about this country” and how badly he wants to be its president. As with the rest of his life, principle won’t stand in his way.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Judicial Ethics and Justice Thomas
Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. . . .They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance . . . .
— Roman Hruska defending Nixon’s proposed appointment of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court
The trouble with being a Justice on the United States Supreme Court is people expect you to be above reproach. And as Justice Clarence Thomas would be the first to tell you, that’s not easy, especially when you’re Justice Thomas. The last few weeks have been especially challenging for the Justice.
In February the New York Times reported that Common Cause had raised questions about a seminar that Justices Thomas and Scalia had attended in 2008. It was sponsored by the Koch brothers, two men whose devotion to and support of countless worthy non-profits is matched only by their devotion to and support of right wing causes. It is their latter devotion that has propelled them into the forefront of American politics in recent months, thanks in part to an article in The New Yorker describing their activities. Although Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges often lecture at events sponsored by organizations with pronounced points of view, what makes the Koch gatherings unique is that the proceedings are closed to the media and the public and there is no public disclosure of what Justices Scalia or Thomas said to the group. What made Justice Thomas’s appearance most significant, since there is no way of knowing what he said, was that since it took place three years ago he was unable to remember how much time he’d spent at the conference.
When the issue was first raised a court spokesperson said Justice Thomas had made what was referred to as a “drop by.” In his financial disclosure statement for 2008, however, Justice Thomas said he had been reimbursed by the Federalist Society for “four days of transportation, meals and accommodations.” He certainly didn’t mean to deceive anyone by the inconsistencies. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that a Supreme Court Justice has more important things to do than to try to keep track of where he has been and for how long. Nor did it occur to him that if it was a four-day all expense paid trip he should treat it as a gift as was suggested by Common Cause. When the inconsistency was pointed out neither the court, the Justice or the Koch brothers had any comment to explain the discrepancy.
Of more consequence was the story in the Los Angeles Times by Jonathan Turley. He discloses that the Justice has trouble remembering who paid what to whom for what. According to this story, Common Cause, an entity that tries to help Justice Thomas comply with the law, found that in Justice Thomas’s disclosure statements that he is required to file annually, he inadvertently overlooked a significant amount of income. It is the sort of mistake any of us could make since it only pertains to money. According to the research done by Common Cause, for many years Justice Thomas forgot that his wife, Virginia, had received hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from assorted conservative organizations. In completing the annual disclosure form he said that his wife has no “non-investment income” in excess of $1,000. In fact, during the period in question she had almost $1 million in non-investment income. (It is possible that he was distracted when filling out the form because he was trying to think of something intelligent to say during oral argument before the court to show that he was paying attention. According to the New York Times, in the last five years Justice Thomas has not asked one question of any of the parties appearing before the court.) When his failure to disclose his wife’s income became public, he wrote to the court and said that he left out the information about his wife’s income because of a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Anyone who has ever filled out a government form can appreciate the confusion that inheres in such a form, except for Stephen Gillers of New York University Law School. He unkindly said of Justice Thomas’s failure to report his wife’s income: “It wasn’t a miscalculation, he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years. . . . It could not have been an oversight.”
Justice Thomas is a sensitive man and can give as good as he gets. In a speech to the Federalist Society he suggested its members should be on their guard. He said that those who were raising issues about his failure to disclose his wife’s income and the possibility that its sources presented him with a conflict of interest in certain cases considered by the court, were undermining the court. He didn’t suggest that Justices who fail to obey the law also undermine the Court. He probably thinks that since he sits on the highest court in the land he is above the law. His conduct proves he’s right.