Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L050308    FLORIDA   Schiavo's parents back in court
L050309    Senate rejects bankruptcy bill's pro-life penalty
L050310    Smoking can damage fetal genes
L050311L  The U.N., politicians and cloning
L050312    2008 run, abortion engage her politically [MDFVA:  Dead on arrival as a Republican presidential
L050312E  Paul Sarbanes' retirement
L050312E  U.N. urges ban on cloning

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050308   CALIFORNIA   Court OKs asylum for gay man with AIDS
H050310   ALABAMA   Legislature OKs ban on gay 'marriages'
H050310   New chief
H050311   'Marriage' foes demonstrate
H050313   Connecticut, Oregon study civil unions

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050307    KANSAS   Christians make 'resurgence' in state
R050307    The battle ahead
R050307C The New Age Supreme Court
R050307E  Byrd on filibuster-busting
R050308     Conservative chapels
R050308     KANSAS   Parish agrees to leave Episcopal Church
R050308     Love her or hate her
R050308L  GOP wooing blacks
R050309     Court reinstates funds to train teachers for religious schools
R050309L  D.C. students need to value life
R050310C  High noon for judges
R050310C  The Big Ten
R050311     Evangelicals lobby Congress on responsibility
R050311C  High noon for judges: Part II
R050312     Bishop says Vatican stands by warning
R050312     Conservative Jews confront dwindling numbers
R050312     Judge orders school to recognize frat
R050312C  Does the Constitution matter?
R050312C  High noon for judges: Part III
R050312L  Sen. Byrd, filibusters and retirement
R050313C  Forum: Religious liberty myth
R050313E  Crisis of secularism
R050313E  Other nations' laws

EDUCATION

MEDIA
M050309   Still in denial
M050310   Viewers voted against airing Rather special
M050311   Dan's apologists

OTHER
O050307   Abstinence funds debate heats up on Senate panel
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    OVERLAND PARK -- Thousands of Christians throughout Kansas are flexing their political muscle by pushing a conservative political agenda that rapidly is gaining momentum.
    "There is an evangelical resurgence in this country and what is happening here in Kansas is symbolic of much of the nation," said Jerry Johnston, senior pastor of First Family Church.
    Indeed, a host of conservative Christian causes are moving forward: On April 5, Kansas voters will decide the fate of an amendment to enact one of the nation's strictest prohibitions against same-sex "marriage"; the state school board is embroiled in arguments between evolution and Biblical beliefs about creation; and fresh battles have begun over abortion rights.
    In the past year, an unprecedented conservative movement has swept the state, sparked primarily by out-of-state court rulings favoring same-sex "marriage."
    "There are pastors and other Christian leaders in every state who are beginning to understand they can't sit back anymore," said the Rev. Jim Conard of First Baptist Church in Shawnee. "Any clear-cut moral issue that God has spoken on is worth defending."

R050307   The battle ahead
    "When Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd rose on the floor Tuesday to compare the tactics of his Republican colleagues in the battles over judicial nominees to those employed by Hitler in building the Reich, you knew two things," Hugh Hewitt writes at the Weekly Standard's Web site (www.weeklystandard.com).
    "First, that the Democrats would never abandon their extra-constitutional position that nominees to the federal courts could be required to receive 60 as opposed to 51 votes for confirmation.
    "Second, that the Democrats had already lost the battle. When the captains are named Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer and Byrd, the outcome is not in doubt," Mr. Hewitt said.
    " ... If the GOP sets up the confrontation with care, it could set the Democrats back another 10 years. The American public knows that a simple majority is the essence of fairness, and that the number '40' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. They also know that Democrats have raised the bar highest for nominees with orthodox religious views; their campaign against Catholic Judge William Pryor is especially offensive.
    "Imagine the handicap newly announced Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey — the pro-life treasurer of Pennsylvania — will face in his race against incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum given his party's bigotry towards devout Catholics like Pryor. Is Casey serious about making the argument that the rights of the unborn will be better off with another Democratic vote added to the caucus of obstruction? And if Casey promises to be open-minded about judges, will the GOP hesitate to point to newly elected Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado — who took less than two months to reverse his campaign position that all judicial nominees should get an up-or-down vote?
    "The Democrats have insisted on calling people of faith 'extremists.' ... Howard Dean went so far as to brand his opponents on abortion issues as 'evil.' This is the sort of extremism that brings forth not only anger, but also resolve."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050307   Abstinence funds debate heats up on Senate panel
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein and Marion Baillot
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A debate about the strict definition of a $50 million-a-year abstinence education grant program is expected tomorrow when a Senate panel convenes to discuss the 1996 welfare law.
    Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to offer an amendment that would allow states to use their Title V abstinence education funds "how they see fit," says one sex education advocate.
    At least one Republican on the panel is expected to support Mr. Baucus.
    Others on the committee, however, including chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, are seen as strong supporters of the Title V program, including its strict eight-point definition that says funds must be used only to promote premarital sexual abstinence.
    Abstinence education supporters say there is ample evidence their approach works.
    "Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way of ensuring that someone does not become pregnant out of wedlock or get someone pregnant out of wedlock or contract sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think we need any studies [to prove that]," Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for children and families in the Department of Health and Human Services, said last week at a Capitol Hill "Abstinence Day" event sponsored by the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and Focus on the Family.
    The challenge for abstinence educators and policy-makers is not to defend the idea that abstinence works, but to "find the most effective strategies for helping the maximum [number of] young people to make their choice," he told congressional staff members and teenage abstinence supporters who gathered at the Capitol Hill Club.
    Teenagers need the abstinence message more than ever because "if they just consume popular culture, they don't get this message very much," said Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, who also attended the gathering.
    Proponents of sex education say there is scant evidence that abstinence education works and states -- which must match $3 of $4 in federal abstinence funding -- should have more flexibility in choosing their sex education programs.
    For instance, Advocates for Youth last fall released a study on 10 state evaluations of their Title V abstinence funds. States spent the funds on activities such as abstinence classes, health fairs, peer education, parental outreach and media campaigns.
    Four of the 10 states reported increases in the number of teens who viewed abstinence as a positive thing, but none of the states had evidence that more teens abstained from premarital sex, Advocates for Youth leaders said.
    Last week, the DC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy held a "best practices" sex education conference that highlighted the Advocates for Youth's "Rights, Respect, Responsibility" campaign.
    The campaign is based on Europe's forthright style of sex education and confidential health services for teens.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050308   CALIFORNIA   Court OKs asylum for gay man with AIDS
    SAN FRANCISCO " A homosexual man with AIDS has enough reason to fear persecution in Lebanon that he shouldn't be deported while seeking asylum in the United States, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, found that Nassier Mustapha Karouni's fear of being arrested, tortured or killed in a country where homosexuality is considered a crime was based on fact, not just emotion.
    "The record demonstrates that ... militants and certain factions of the Lebanese and local governments are a credible threat to homosexuals like Karouni," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the three-judge panel.
    In determining that sexual orientation makes Mr. Karouni eligible for refugee status, the court rejected the Justice Department's argument that he could avoid persecution by not having sex upon his return home. The court did not rule on the merits of the asylum petition, but remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050308   FLORIDA   Schiavo's parents back in court

    CLEARWATER -- While Terri Schiavo's parents pushed for new court rulings that might prevent the death of their brain-damaged daughter, attention increasingly turned to the state capital for a dramatic move from lawmakers to intervene again in the case.
    Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler will return to court this afternoon to argue that Mrs. Schiavo needs to undergo additional medical tests on whether she truly is in a persistent vegetative state and that the judge needs to reconsider evidence of what her end-of-life wishes might be.
    A bill that might affect Mrs. Schiavo's case is expected to be heard soon after state lawmakers convene their regular session in Tallahassee today. Her husband will have the legal right to remove her food and water tubes March 18.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050308   KANSAS   Parish agrees to leave Episcopal Church

    OVERLAND PARK -- The largest parish in the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Kansas has agreed in principle to separate from the diocese and the national Episcopal Church USA because of disagreements over several issues, including the ordination of an openly homosexual Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire.
    The proposed separation of Christ Episcopal Church of Overland Park was announced Sunday by the church and the Kansas diocese. Parish members will vote April 3 on the separation. The Council of Trustees of the diocese approved the agreement March 1.
    The Overland Park church decided to withhold some of its financial commitment to the diocese after the ordination in 2003 of V. Gene Robinson, who lives with his male partner, as a bishop in New Hampshire.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050308   Love her or hate her

    After a dozen years, the American Civil Liberties Union's chief lobbyist in Washington, Laura Murphy, is leaving her controversial post, having led battles on behalf of "victims" of school prayer, same-sex "marriage," flag-burning and counterterrorism.
    Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, says he gained enormous respect for Mrs. Murphy's political instincts in the weeks after September 11, 2001, when her Washington office became the fulcrum of efforts to fight President Bush's antiterrorism policies, including the USA Patriot Act.
    Nevertheless, Mrs. Murphy considers one of the more recent highlights of ACLU lobbying her ability to build coalitions with Republicans and conservative interest groups on antiterrorism laws, as well as same-sex "marriage."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050308   Conservative chapels

    Warring Episcopalian eyes will be on a sleepy South Carolina chapel tomorrow, when one of the United States' most pre-eminent conservative Episcopal bishops consecrates the historic Chapel of St. Charles, King and Martyr, in Mayesville.
    The consecration, one observer points out, couldn't come at a more interesting time in light of the explosive Anglican Communion controversy of late.
    The officiating bishop, the Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman of the diocese of Quincy, Ill., represents one of three dioceses in the United States that recently cut off all funding to the Episcopal Church in light of the increasing liberalization of church doctrine — not the least being the blessing of homosexual unions and the consecration of the first openly homosexual bishop, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050309   Still in denial
    "Dan Rather is going out denying any liberal bias and with a CBS News bio segment dismissing any such contention," the Media Research Center's Brent Baker writes at www.mediaresearch.org.
    "In a Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer profile, Rather attributed the liberal-bias charge to how he's 'a passionate' and 'aggressively independent reporter' and 'when you handle hot material, you're going to catch flak.'
    "In a CBS 'Sunday Morning' review of Rather's career, Lee Cowan declared that as for the liberal label applied to Rather: 'Those who know him best say Dan never played just one side of the fence.' Cowan also ridiculously praised Rather for taking 'responsibility' for memogate."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050309   Court reinstates funds to train teachers for religious schools

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An appeals court panel yesterday upheld federal funding for a teacher-training program at the University of Notre Dame that places educators in needy Catholic schools.
    Taxpayer support of religious schools is constitutional so long as government funds go to "programs of true private choice," wrote Judge A. Raymond Randolph for the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
    The decision reversed a 2004 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler that the Corporation for National and Community Service, parent of the AmeriCorps program, had violated the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion by awarding tuition vouchers to teachers in Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE).
    The American Jewish Congress (AJC) challenged the program because AmeriCorps awarded $4,725 vouchers for education-related expenses of Notre Dame teachers assigned only to Catholic schools.
    The AJC also objected to teachers fulfilling their service requirement by teaching religion courses in addition to secular subjects in the parochial schools.
    "We believe the Supreme Court's more recent decisions upholding programs of true private choice, particularly Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), control this case," the court said.
    The 5-4 Zelman ruling upheld a Cleveland school-voucher program against a First Amendment challenge on grounds that parents had a right to use tax-supported vouchers to pay tuition at religious schools as long as they also had the option of nonsectarian schools.
    "When a government program is neutral toward religion and 'provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice,' the Establishment Clause is not violated," the appeals court stated, in quoting Zelman.
    Notre Dame, which fought the AJC court challenge for two years, welcomed yesterday's ruling.
    "We have long thought that our Alliance for Catholic Education is a model program that fully complies with the First Amendment, and we're pleased that the appeals court agrees," said Notre Dame spokesman Matthew V. Storin.
    David Eisner, chief executive of the service corporation, also applauded the decision.
    "We're delighted that the court has stepped firmly on the side of needy children in religious schools receiving these critical services," he said.
    Started in 1994, ACE places new Catholic graduates of the university into Catholic schools that are short of funds or Catholic teachers. ACE teachers have been assigned to Catholic schools in 55 cities and 14 states, according to the program's Web site.
    AmeriCorps gives $4,725 vouchers -- which can be redeemed at Notre Dame for educational expenses -- to ACE teachers who provide at least 1,700 hours of service.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050309   Senate rejects bankruptcy bill's pro-life penalty

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws cleared its last serious hurdle yesterday when Senate Republicans rebuffed an effort to single out pro-life protesters for additional punishment.
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, proposed an amendment specifying that pro-life protesters cannot file bankruptcy to avoid paying fines and court judgments against them. Had the amendment passed, the bankruptcy reform bill likely would have been defeated, as in previous Congresses.
    The amendment lost on a 53-46 vote yesterday afternoon. Hours later, Republicans headed off a Democratic filibuster of the overall bill with a 69-31 vote to limit how much time the chamber will spend on debate.
    "Senator Schumer's amendment was a blatant attempt to criminalize pro-life advocates who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics — with full legal protection — by insinuating that their intent is to commit violent acts," said Lanier Swann, director of government relations for Concerned Women for America. "We defeated this poisonous amendment again this year, and we will continue to fight it if it dares to raise its ugly head in the future.
    "The bankruptcy bill addresses a bipartisan concern, which was nearly jeopardized by Senator Schumer's controversial and unnecessary amendment," she said.
    Mr. Schumer said the purpose of his bill was simple and straightforward.
    "If you use violence or the threat of violence to achieve a goal — a political goal — and you are successfully sued as you should be by the person or persons you've used violence against, you can't then go back home to a bankruptcy court and say, 'Protect me,'" Mr. Schumer said.
    Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and longtime supporter of the bill, said the Schumer amendment was not necessary because there are no protections from court fines and legal judgments.
    Even some Republicans who had voted for the Schumer amendment in the past said it was a "poison pill," likely to scuttle the entire bill.
    "The truth is it then became the single factor in the House's rejection of the bankruptcy bill, a bill that passed this body by a vote of 83-15," said Mr. Sessions, who had voted for the entire bill in previous years with the protester provision attached.
    Said Rep. Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican: "It would have been disastrous if this had passed. Democracy really dodged a bullet today."
    Among those who supported the Schumer amendment was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, who has made the bankruptcy reform bill a top priority.
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said she would oppose the overall bankruptcy bill because the Schumer amendment had been killed.
    The bankruptcy reform bill is expected to be approved by the full Senate this week. The legislation then goes to the House, where it has broad support.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050310   Viewers voted against airing Rather special

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    A northern Michigan CBS affiliate asked its viewers about a Dan Rather special, and the people were saying "no" until the station stopped the voting.
    WWTV in Cadillac, Mich., began taking votes on its Web site Monday evening about whether to carry last night's 8 p.m. broadcast of "Dan Rather: A Reporter Remembers." Mr. Rather earlier last night delivered his final "CBS Evening News" telecast as anchorman.
    Station spokeswoman Tessia Klix said Tuesday afternoon that more than 1,000 people had cast ballots, with 63 percent voting no.

    But William E. Kring, station general manager, said yesterday the poll had been discontinued because it had been "grossly misinterpreted."
    "We were simply trying to maintain the great tradition of local viewer input," Mr. Kring said. "It was never our intent to embarrass Mr. Rather or the CBS network," Mr. Kring said.
    The network had no comment, but Mr. Rather came up a loser in another poll.
    A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday night said just 23 percent of the public believe all or most of what Mr. Rather says, compared with 34 percent in 2002.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050310   New chief

    The Human Rights Campaign announced yesterday that Joe Solmonese, the homosexual chief executive officer of the women's electoral advocacy group Emily's List, has been selected as HRC's new president.
    The decision to choose Mr. Solmonese, 40, ends a three-month search to replace Cheryl Jacques, who resigned as HRC president in December after holding the position for less than a year, according to the Blade, a Washington newspaper that caters to homosexuals.
    Vic Basile, an HRC board member and co-chairman of a search committee, said Mr. Solmonese would begin April 11 with an annual salary of $225,000, a figure Mr. Basile called "the standard in the industry" for the kind of legislative and political campaign work that comes with the job.
    Meanwhile, blogger Michael Petrelis, writing at http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com, said he "wasn't the least bit surprised" that all of Mr. Solmonese's donations since 1992 have been to Democratic candidates and political action committees closely affiliated with the Democratic Party.
    "But what was amusing was seeing that Solmonese had donated twice to his predecessor at HRC -- Cheryl Jacques!" Mr. Petrelis said.
    "Maybe he should call her up and ask for advice on how to avoid becoming a failed executive director of a gay and lesbian political action group.
    "Considering his strong Democratic leanings and donations, it will be fascinating to watch Solmonese reach out to work with the GOP, Greens and independent voters and politicians."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050310   Smoking can damage fetal genes
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of causing genetic damage to the unborn child, a preliminary study in yesterday's Journal of the American Medical Association suggests.
    The key finding in the report by Spanish researchers was that there was a 3½-fold increase in structural chromosomal abnormalities in fetal cells from pregnant smokers than those from nonsmokers.
    "Such results, if substantiated, would provide direct evidence of tobacco-associated" genetic mutations and "could have important implications for the immediate and long-term health effects of children born to mothers who smoke," Environmental Protection Agency scientists David M. DeMarini and R. Julian Preston wrote in an accompanying editorial.
    The EPA scientists and the European researchers -- biologists with the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona in Bellaterra, Spain -- stressed there already was a lot of evidence indicating the hazards of smoking while pregnant.
    But until now, only "indirect data" indicating smoking has a possible "genotoxic effect" on human pregnancies has been published, said Rosa Ana de la Chica, who led the Spanish team of researchers. Genotoxic refers to the potential for tobacco to damage DNA and cause genetic mutations.
    Mr. DeMarini and Mr. Preston said the new study is the first to provide direct evidence of such a link. But, Mr. DeMarini cautions that the Spanish research is "not a definitive study," and he questions some of the methodology used.
    He said the experiment could have been better if the scientists relied on an "independent assessment of a woman's smoking behavior, not just her memory."
    The new study analyzed amniocytes, or cells of fetal origin in amniotic fluid, obtained by routine amniocentesis from 25 pregnant women who smoked 10 or more cigarettes daily for 10 or more years and from 25 pregnant nonsmokers.
    The women who participated in the study filled out questionnaires about their smoking habits and said they had not been drinking alcohol, coffee or tea during pregnancy.
    The researchers said the association between maternal smoking and increased chromosomal instability in amniotic fluid cells was "expressed as chromosomal lesions (gaps and breaks) and structural chromosomal abnormalities."
    Specifically, they said, the proportion of structural chromosomal abnormalities among smokers was 12.1 percent, compared with 3.5 percent among nonsmokers. The scientists further concluded that the "chromosomal region most affected by tobacco" was a band commonly implicated in blood cancers, such as leukemia.
    However, Mr. DeMarini said the Spanish data doesn't confirm that smoking during pregnancy "could be setting up babies for an increased risk of leukemia," because only five cases suggested this correlation.
    "We still conclude that smoking is very bad for the fetus," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050310   ALABAMA   Legislature OKs ban on gay 'marriages'

    MONTGOMERY -- Alabama's Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday that would ban same-sex "marriages" and refuse to recognize those from other states.
    The Senate voted 30-0 to give final approval to the proposed amendment, which the House passed 85-7 Tuesday. The measure must be approved by Alabama voters at the next election, the party primaries scheduled for June 2006.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050311    Dan's apologists

    "Marking Dan Rather's departure from the 'CBS Evening News,' on Wednesday some reporters and reviewers delivered rather sycophantic praise," the Media Research Center's Brent Baker writes at www.mediaresearch.org.
    " 'The fact is, for my money,' 'Early Show' quad-host Harry Smith effused, 'he's the best television reporter who's ever lived.' ABC's Peter Jennings cautioned that 'I think you measure a man by his whole career and not by one incident' and ABC's Charlie Gibson asserted: 'His critics have tried to make it about him, but he's always made it about the work and his work has been distinguished over 24 years.' On CNN, Bruce Morton rejected the idea that Rather displayed liberal bias: 'I think what Dan always wanted most was a good story.'
    "Nationally syndicated Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales fretted about how 'sad' it was that 'ultra-conservatives' benefited from memogate: 'One of the sad things about it is that it gave the right wing, which has had its sights on Rather for years now, something to cheer and dance in the streets about.' "
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050311   Evangelicals lobby Congress on responsibility

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

America's top evangelical Christian organization yesterday released an ambitious plan to influence public policy, to be sent to every member of Congress.
    According to "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," Christians have a duty "to help shape the actions of the world's lone superpower," especially in "this moment of opportunity" after the 2004 election.
    The document was published by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Seventy-eight percent of white evangelicals voted for President Bush in the past election. Evangelicals number about 65 million, or 23 percent of the U.S. population.
    Not only should evangelicals keep to their traditional stances on abortion and marriage and on family issues, the document stated, but they need to do more regarding the poor, the environment, refugee resettlement, disaster and AIDS relief, and need to work against sexual trafficking, prison rape, slavery and human rights abuses.
    Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and Orthodox Jew, spoke briefly to the group about global warming, and quoted the Bible -- Psalms and a verse in 1 Corinthians, a New Testament book -- in his speech.
    He also called global warming "a moral issue which causes us to exercise moral leadership before the worst consequences are seen."
    However, "global warming" is not mentioned in the NAE document, which spells out evangelical concerns only in generalizations.
    Eighty-seven Christian leaders signed the document, although some said privately at the meeting they feared politicians could morph environmental concerns into population-control legislation.
    "I don't want to be a grouchy evangelical," said one of the 153 evangelical leaders who attended the statement's release at the Hart Senate Office building. "But over 25 years, I've seen us getting co-opted over and over again."
     America's evangelicals were "by far the single most potent voting bloc in the electorate last year," according to a "Trends 2005" background report by the Pew Research Center.
    The NAE, which represents 30 million evangelicals in 45,000 churches, also distributed "Toward an Evangelical Public Policy," a 375-page book that spells out a biblical basis for political involvement.
    "This is the beginning of serious communal evangelical reflection on public policy," said Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action and co-editor of the book.
    Despite long-standing differences on political issues, "I believe it's possible for evangelical Christians to expand their agreement and enlarge their political impact," Mr. Sider said.
    Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican and a Roman Catholic, urged that more evangelicals take on less-popular causes, such as prison reform and "genocide" in Sudan.
    "Friends tell me you can't build a nationwide constituency for what's happening in Africa," he said. "But what more noble thing is it to do than break the chains of the oppressed?"
    The rest of the world copies what happens in the United States, he said, adding, "If we get the basics right, we'll have a magnification around the world."
    In an effort to forge ties with black evangelicals, the NAE had three on the speaker's platform, including Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of the Skinner Leadership Institute in Tracy's Landing, Md., who chided the group for not doing enough to combat racism.
    "It was not evangelical Christians who stood next to Martin Luther King," said Mrs. Skinner, who identified herself as a "pro-life Democrat" and a former top staffer with the Congressional Black Caucus.
    "If we think 100 million Christians, with their spotty commitment to social justice will take their commitment to pro-life issues and the sanctity of marriage and translate that to other issues, I don't think so."
    NAE President Ted Haggard, who followed her, quickly agreed.
    "We made a mistake by not standing with Martin Luther King," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312    Bishop says Vatican stands by warning

    LINCOLN, Neb. -- The Vatican has let stand a 1996 order from Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz that his parishioners must sever ties with 12 groups or face potential excommunication, the Lincoln Diocese said.
    Among the groups are the lay reform organization Call to Action, abortion rights advocates Planned Parenthood and Catholics for a Free Choice, and several Masonic organizations. Bishop Bruskewitz said the groups contradict Roman Catholic teaching.
    An appeal was filed with the Vatican, but the Holy See notified the bishop that the appeal was rejected, said the Rev. Mark Huber, a spokesman for the diocese.
    Father Huber said last week that Catholics who affiliate themselves with the groups have two months to sever the ties. Bishop Bruskewitz has said that parishioners must search their consciences to decide whether the warning applies to them.
    Excommunication is a severe penalty under which Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion, or be married or buried in the church. They can, however, restore their communion with the church through confession.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312   Judge orders school to recognize frat

    RALEIGH, N.C. -- The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill must recognize a three-member Christian fraternity as it challenges the school's nondiscrimination policy, a judge has ruled.
    The preliminary injunction issued March 2 by U.S. District Judge Frank W. Bullock Jr. will remain in place until the case is resolved, possibly by trial.
    Alpha Iota Omega was stripped of its status as an official campus group because the fraternity wouldn't accept nonbelievers or homosexual students or sign the school's nondiscrimination policy. Recognition gives the fraternity access to student funds and university facilities.
    The fraternity sued last year, saying the university had violated the members' constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and free exercise of religion.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312    Conservative Jews confront dwindling numbers

By Rachel Zoll
ASSOCIATED PRESS

The branch of American Judaism that occupies the middle ground between those who buck tradition and those who fully embrace it confronted the dwindling appeal of the movement in a meeting this week in Houston.
    Members of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, at their annual convention, said their seminaries and day schools have been educating more and more Jews, only to see them flee to other Jewish movements.
    Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the leading Conservative school, said the exodus of young Conservative Jews with strong religious educations is a key reason the movement is floundering.
    "I deem that to be the most critical loss," he said, in a phone interview from the meeting, titled "Reinventing Conservative Judaism."
    Mr. Schorsch partly blames the trend on the poor quality of worship in Conservative synagogues, which he says are so geared toward "entry-level Jews" that those with more religious knowledge leave for the stricter Orthodox congregations. Mr. Schorsch said he often worships at an Orthodox synagogue on Friday nights, the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, because of the beauty of the service.
    "There is really a fatal disconnect," he said. "There is not enough attention being paid to advanced Jews."
    The Conservative movement teaches a traditional Judaism that is moderately flexible. For example, Conservatives allow members to drive on the Jewish Sabbath if necessary and let men and women sit together during services. However, unlike clergy in the more liberal Reform stream, most Conservative rabbis will not officiate at interfaith weddings. The Orthodox movement has the strictest adherence to Jewish law and tradition.
    Conservatives have resisted pressure to liberalize core teachings to prevent less-observant Jews from leaving for Reform synagogues, which generally give a greater role to homosexuals and to Gentile spouses of congregants.
    Although exact numbers are hard to calculate, Jewish leaders now agree that the Reform movement has overtaken Conservative Judaism as the largest North American branch -- in members and in number of synagogues. The total number of Jews in the United States is estimated at 5 million to 6 million.
    However, these are not the losses that preoccupy most Conservative thinkers. Instead, many want to retain the more observant congregants -- a strategy they believe will revitalize synagogues.
    "If a person decides that they are really not interested in observance, then the Conservative movement is really not the place for them," said Rabbi Reuven Hammer, a Conservative leader from Israel who attended the Texas meeting. "But sometimes we lose people who become very observant. If we don't have enough observant people in our congregations, then they will look for a place they will feel more comfortable."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050312   2008 run, abortion engage her politically [MDFVA:  Dead on arrival as a Republican presidential candidate]

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008, and gave her most detailed explanation of a "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.
    In an interview with editors and reporters in the office of the editor in chief at The Washington Times, she said she would not want the government "forcing its views" on abortion.
    She seemed bemused by speculation that a Rice candidacy could set up an unprecedented all-woman matchup with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, who is widely expected to seek the presidency.
    "I never wanted to run for anything — I don't think I even ran for class anything when I was in school," she said. "I'm going to try to be a really good secretary of state; I'm going to work really hard at it.
    "I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It's really hard for me to imagine myself in that role."
    She was then pressed on whether she would rule out a White House bid by reprising Gen. William T. Sherman's 1884 declaration: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
    "Well, that's not fair," she protested with a chuckle. "The last thing I can — I really can't imagine it."
    Several Republicans have floated the idea of a Rice candidacy to counter Mrs. Clinton's prospects, especially since several Republican officials with national prominence, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have ruled out pursuing the party's 2008 nomination.
    Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani are often mentioned as prospective candidates, and several other potential Republican candidates, such as Sen. George Allen of Virginia and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, have not yet developed a national following.
    Other Republicans have questioned whether evangelical Christians, a crucial component of the Republican base, would turn out to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Miss Rice, a Presbyterian's preacher's daughter who twice in the interview spoke of her "deep religious faith," suggested it's a moot point. "I'm not trying to be elected."
    Miss Rice said abortion should be "as rare a circumstance as possible," although without excessive government intervention. "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.
    "So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
    Describing pro-lifers as "the other side" is one of the ways Miss Rice articulates her position as a "mildly pro-choice" Republican. She explained that she is "in effect kind of libertarian on this issue," adding: "I have been concerned about a government role.
    "I am a strong proponent of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be.
    "We ought to have a culture that says, 'Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or a sibling go through something like that?' "
    Miss Rice described abortion as an "extremely difficult moral issue" which she approaches as "a deeply religious person."
    "My faith is a part of everything that I do," she said. "It's not something that I can set outside of anything that I do, because it's so integral to who I am.
    "And prayer is very important to me and a belief that if you ask for it, you will be guided. Now, that doesn't mean that I think that God will tell me what to do on, you know, the Iran nuclear problem.
    "That's not how I see it. But I do believe very strongly that if you are a prayerful and faithful person, that that is a help in guiding us, as imperfect beings, to have to deal with extremely difficult and consequential matters."
    Since becoming secretary of state earlier this year, she has noticed a public interest about even her taste in fashion. Yesterday, she wore a smartly tailored black suit with large gold buttons on the sleeves.
    "I like clothes — I always have," she said to laughter, answering a question. "You know, when I was 5 years old, my poor father would go off to work on his sermon on Saturday — he was the Presbyterian minister — so he would go off to work on his sermon. And my mother and I would go shopping. Shopping is fun."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050313   Connecticut, Oregon study civil unions

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Connecticut and Oregon appear to be vying to become the second U.S. state to create marriagelike civil unions for homosexual couples.
    In Connecticut, the Joint Judiciary Committee recently approved a bill to create civil unions, a legal partnership that carries many state rights of marriage but is not called marriage. It is similar to the nation's first civil union law in Vermont, which went into effect in 2000.
    The Connecticut bill still needs to go before the Democrat-led House and Senate, but many observers think it can pass. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has indicated "general" support for civil unions, although she has not said whether she will sign this particular bill.
 Will Congress Pass Medical Liability Reform?
President Bush agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
    Traditional-values groups, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut and Connecticut Catholic Conference, oppose civil unions as "same-sex marriage in everything but name." Last week, they released a poll showing that most Connecticut residents would like to vote on a constitutional amendment that reserves marriage for opposite-sex couples.
    Meanwhile, in Oregon, the watch is on for a pivotal decision by the state Supreme Court.
    Last year, Multnomah County officials "married" thousands of same-sex couples, prompting lawsuits. Traditional-values groups reacted with a petition drive for a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, which voters approved in November.
    The amendment presumably blocks the Oregon high court from permitting same-sex "marriage," although the court still must decide on the legality of the 3,000 Multnomah unions.
    Homosexual-rights groups generally oppose civil unions because they are not recognized outside the home state and are not viewed as marriages under federal law. Moreover, since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state in November 2003, the goal has become full marriage rights in every state.
    In Connecticut, the Love Makes a Family homosexual-rights group initially opposed the civil-union bill, but changed its position. "We will not stand in the way of expanding our rights," group leader Anne Stanback wrote in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant.
    Americans are divided on legal recognition for same-sex unions.
    Polls taken in 2004 show strong disapproval of same-sex "marriage," according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which in December updated its report on public attitudes about homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."
    However, in at least seven polls, people were given three options for homosexual couples: "marriage," "civil unions" or "nothing." In five of these polls, the most popular answer was "nothing," the AEI report said. But if supporters of "marriage" and "civil unions" were counted together, they outnumbered those who didn't want any legal recognition for homosexual couples.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050307E   Byrd on filibuster-busting

In an op-ed last week in The Washington Post, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd wrongly claimed the Senate had "rejected" seven of President Bush's 20 nominees to the federal bench. He also argued that Senate Republicans threaten free speech by considering rules changes. We hold floor debates in high esteem and appreciate the machinations of partisan politics. But Mr. Byrd not only was inaccurate; the senior senator's own voting record runs contrary to his partisan parsing that appeared in The Post.
    First of all, Mr. Byrd was wrong to state the Senate had "rejected" 20 Bush nominees, since none has been voted on.
    Mr. Byrd also said that: "By a simple majority vote, a Senate filibuster on judicial appointments would be 'nuked' for all time." He also posited a right to "unlimited debate."
    This from a senator who is himself something of a pioneer in filibuster-busting. As Republican Sen. John Cornyn pointed out to us, Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing. In 1977, Mr. Byrd called for rule changes to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural-gas deregulation bill. In 1979, he advocated the quashing of objections to appropriations bills by having the chair -- not the full Senate, as had previously been the case -- rule on questions of germaneness. His 1980 move changing voting rules for nominations was meant, in his own words, to "deal with a filibuster."
    In 1987, Mr. Byrd pushed a new precedent ruling out "dilatory" tactics during roll-call votes regardless of whether cloture had been invoked. At a time when Democrats dominated the Senate, Mr. Byrd thought nothing of tweaking procedure to quell dissent. As a matter of law, he was within his rights to advocate such changes. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution establishes that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." The senator wasn't shy in justifying changes, either. "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past," he said in 1979. The rules "have been changed from time to time," he said. In fact, the founders wanted this, he reasoned: "The Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate." But now that Republicans would cast off the "dead hand" of the past, Mr. Byrd objects.
    Mr. Byrd, a member of the Senate since 1958, knows as well as anyone that the Bush nominees will pass if they get the up-or-down vote they deserve. It's yet another sign of the lengths to which some Senate Democrats will go to obstruct the president's judicial nominations.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050308L   GOP wooing blacks

    Republican efforts to win black votes ("GOP drive to woo blacks via church alarms Brazile," Nation, Thursday) should be effective because churches are very important to the black community. The Republican Party is also on the Christian side of issues, such as abortion and same-sex "marriage."
    Republicans also support issues that are good for blacks as well as all other Americans. Among other things, they are for vouchers so parents can get their children out of failing public schools, parental notification before an abortion so parents can decide how to deal with an underage daughter's pregnancy, tax cuts so taxpayers have more of their money to spend, the Marriage Penalty Relief Act so married couples don't pay more income taxes than if they were single and living together, voluntary investment of part of Social Security so people can earn and keep more for their retirement, and the faith-based initiative so churches can be more effective in solving social problems.
    The Democratic Party is in favor of power to control the people. The Democrats prefer big government, high taxes and dependent people who rely on government programs to provide jobs, education (public schools), medical care (Medicare/Medicaid), retirement (Social Security), etc. Under Hillary Rodham Clinton's program, they tried to take over the health care industry in this country. Big government is like a big plantation except the slaves are now from all races.
 
    ROBERT BOUDREAUX
    Waldorf, Md.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050309L   D.C. students need to value life

    I find it interesting that the only answer to rampant crime in D.C. high schools ("Students want police inside D.C. schools," Page 1, Sunday) seems to be more security, more money and more guards. These are schools that already have guards in them, and although more security might help, it would do nothing to change the behaviors and attitudes of violent students in the schools.
    Would added security have prevented Thomas J. Boykin from killing James Richardson? There is a chance it would have, but it is doubtful. If Boykin had wanted to, he probably could have killed James on the bus or waited until he left school. The gun did not kill James; Boykin killed him.
    In addition, I find it ironic that as the Ten Commandments are being taken out of public schools, lest they hurt someone's feelings, there is not "a more relevant issue than school security."
    Don't you think it would comfort students to have the Ten Commandments in their school, the Sixth Commandment being "Thou shalt not kill," versus having no commandments? Instead of instilling a moral code such as the Ten Commandments, it appears D.C. residents would rather just pay more money for more security guards who can fraternize with students and "[bring] a sense of security."
 
    ANDREW GRANT
    Millersville, Md.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050311L   The U.N., politicians and cloning

    The United Nations has issued a clear call to protect human dignity and human life by urging nations to ban all human cloning, period ("U.N. urges ban on cloning," Page 1, Wednesday).
    That's a welcome wake-up call to the U.S. politicians who have caved to the slick rhetoric and campaign-funding potential of "big bio" cloning lobbyists. While making scandalous speculations about cures, the cloning crowd has deployed smoke-screen euphemisms such as "therapeutic cloning" and "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to avert public revulsion.
    Crafty lawmakers have proposed phony cloning "bans" that actually allow the cloning of living human embryos and then mandate their destruction within weeks.
    Lamentably, Congress could have taken the ethical lead in the world and banned human cloning years ago. The House several times passed a true ban, and President Bush supported it, but the often waffling Senate derailed it.
    Now, the United Nations has taken the lead, telling the world that cloning is morally and ethically reprehensible and must be banned. I hope it won't take long for our politicians to perceive the predicament of landing to the left of the United Nations on this vital issue.
 
    JONATHAN IMBODY
    Senior policy analyst
    Christian Medical Association
    Ashburn, Va.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050312E   Paul Sarbanes' retirement

Sen. Paul Sarbanes' announcement yesterday that he will not seek re-election to a sixth term is likely to trigger a game of political musical chairs in Maryland, where Mr. Sarbanes -- the kind of liberal Democrat who traditionally wins statewide elections -- appeared unbeatable.
    His pending departure has unsurprisingly triggered rampant speculation about who will succeed him in the Senate, with former congressman and NAACP head Kweisi Mfume near the top of the list on the Democratic side. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, who had been expected to face off against Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan in a bruising gubernatorial primary, is another possible candidate. On the Republican side, prominent names include Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and state Sen. E.J. Pipkin, who challenged Barbara Mikulski last year.
    Mr. Sarbanes first ran in 1970 as an opponent of the Vietnam War and Baltimore's Democratic Party political machine. He upset 13-term incumbent George Fallon in the 4th Congressional District primary and went on to be elected to the House of Representatives that November. After being re-elected to the House in 1972 and 1974, Mr. Sarbanes defeated incumbent Republican freshman J. Glenn Beall to win election to the Senate, where he has served ever since.
    Although we have rarely agreed with Mr. Sarbanes on policy matters, we found admirable his quiet manner and his refusal to grandstand. In an era in which many of his colleagues cannot keep away from the television cameras, Mr. Sarbanes has done much of his political work behind the scenes. This style was very much on display early in 2002, when Congress began examining the WorldCom scandal and other matters related to corporate malfeasance. While other congressmen and senators held well-publicized hearings that received plenty of attention from the press, Mr. Sarbanes plodded along, holding a series of hearings on business accounting and governance. In the end, Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America points out, he "essentially dictated terms to Republicans during abbreviated conference negotiations, and the statute that was enacted stands as the most sweeping overhaul of securities since the Great Depression." Aside from his role in pushing through the securities bill, Mr. Sarbanes is probably best remembered for his role in 1974 as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he drafted the article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice.
    While Mr. Sarbanes has an extraordinary record of political success, one important cautionary note is in order: The last time an incumbent senator from Maryland retired was in 1986, when Republican Charles Mathias departed after three terms. Initially Gov. Harry Hughes appeared to have a chance to succeed him. But the Hughes campaign imploded due to the state savings-and-loan scandal, and Miss Mikulski was elected to the Senate. Other political up-and-comers, like Rep. Michael Barnes and Attorney General Steve Sachs, also bested by Miss Mikulski in the Democratic primary that year, faded into political oblivion. That's something the ambitious politicians looking to replace Mr. Sarbanes would do well to keep in mind.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312L   Sen. Byrd, filibusters and retirement

    Regarding judicial confirmations, a lot of attention seems to be spent on what some call the "nuclear option" (Democrats to maintain filibusters on Bush nominees" Page 1, March 2). In fact, it is the "constitutional option." This would simply allow a majority, rather than requiring 60 percent, to confirm judges.
    Sen. Robert Byrd compared this strategy to tactics used by Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany and said it would eliminate free speech.
    This was an unusual comment for the former Ku Klux Klan member, considering that he has supported the constitutional option numerous times in his long service in the Senate. If passed, the constitutional option still would grant him the privilege of stating his objections to any or all nominees.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy also objected to the use of the constitutional option. However, as research from the office of Sen. John Cornyn shows, Mr. Kennedy also has repeatedly supported the procedural change when it has suited his purposes.
    It is time for order and constitutionality to be restored to the judicial confirmation process.
 
    ALLEN MARSH
    Nampa, Idaho
 
    •
 
    It is sad to see Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who has contributed so much over the years, be reduced to a bumbling fool and a racist by the major media across the nation ("Drifting backward," Inside the Beltway, Wednesday).
     I don't care what political affiliation you are; the senator embarrassed himself with his latest remarks comparing Senate Republicans to Nazis.
    By doing this, he cheapened the memory of the 6 million Jews, Catholics and others murdered by the Nazis. Adolph Hitler was a horrible, evil man; Senate Republicans are not. They are Americans who, in at least one case, fought Hitler's Nazis.
    I remember the day I was in Kuwait during Operation Iraqi Freedom and I saw Mr. Byrd, my senator, on Fox News, lashing out at the president and calling the war in which I was serving unconstitutional. That hurt me deeply. I could see the morale slipping in the faces of all the West Virginians with whom I was serving.
    The more than 30 million listeners a week to Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's radio shows are hearing him called "Robert Sheets Byrd" and "Robert KKK Byrd." This is what Mr. Byrd has done, and he needs to apologize and retire for what he said last week.
    Pro-abortion and liberal groups have made it known that they will block any and all presidential nominations to the federal bench that are pro-life and disagree with Roe v. Wade.
    West Virginians are overwhelmingly pro-life, and Mr. Byrd should represent West Virginians first, not liberal special-interest groups.
    I fear next year's election may get ugly. Mr. Byrd must either come to grips with the fact that the president won West Virginia by more than 90,000 votes or retire. No one wants to witness the deterioration of a great political mind in the midst of a re-election campaign. Now is the time for the senator to retire and ready the reins for a new generation.
 
    HIRAM LEWIS
    Treasurer
    West Virginia Republican Party
    Morgantown
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050313E   Other nations' laws

When the Supreme Court nullified death-penalty statutes for 16- and 17-year-olds in 20 states in its 5-4 Roper v. Simmons decision of March 1, it appealed, among other things, to world opinion and to statutes the United States hasn't agreed to. Meanwhile in so doing, it ignored the many Americans who think that sometimes, when juveniles commit capital offenses, they deserve death. The question all this prompts, in our view, is whether the time is drawing near for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    If that seems extreme, consider how little constitutionality and U.S. law figured in the Roper v. Simmons case. The decision in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion on juveniles and the death penalty rested primarily on "our society's evolving standards of decency" as Justice Kennedy saw them. "[Eighteen] states — or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment — now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18," Justice Kennedy posited, calling it a consensus. The Supreme Court decision overturned a 15-year-old Supreme Court ruling that the juvenile death-penalty statutes are constitutional.
    It's not just the faulty reasoning that is troubling; it's the faulty law. Most prominently, Justice Kennedy proceeded to invoke international laws to which the United States doesn't even subscribe. "It is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote. He pointed to a treaty the United States hasn't signed, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one it signed without agreeing to its juvenile death-penalty provisions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to buttress the argument. World opinion, he wrote, "while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." He claimed a national consensus exists on the issue, pointing to the fewer than half of death-penalty states that disallow it.
    This was too much for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is normally an international-law enthusiast. "Because I do not believe that a genuine national consensus against the juvenile death penalty has yet developed," she wrote in her dissent, "I can assign no such confirmatory role to the international consensus described by the court." She's right, of course: Some polls indicate that one-third of Americans support keeping the juvenile death penalty, which is one reason why more than half of the country's death-penalty states allowed it.
    It was also too much for Justice Antonin Scalia, who took exception to Justice Kennedy's resort to the two treaties. "Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, its position," he wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Scalia also had caustic words for the supposed "consensus." As he wrote: "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus. Our previous cases have required overwhelming opposition to a challenged practice, generally over a long period of time."
    It's not hard to see why the justices were unhappy with the decision. American courts have used foreign law and international law in their decisions since their inception. But what they haven't done is reason according to laws the United States hasn't agreed to. That strain of thought is new, and it's the product of a movement that favors international law as an end in itself.
    As Yale's Harold Koh has put it in the past, the point of the new thinking is "bringing international law home." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in 2003 that she hoped America could discard its "Lone Ranger" approach to the Constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer, who has invoked the rulings of Zimbabwe and India in his opinions, said on ABC's "This Week" in 2003 that Americans will need to figure out whether the Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations." Justice O'Connor herself has a track record here. In 1997 she said that American judges and lawyers "sometimes seem a bit insular" and "forget that there are other legal systems in the world."
    But international law isn't always desirable, and sometimes the United States rejects it. On Wednesday, the United States did just that when it withdrew from an agreement that gave a foreign entity control over, among other things, U.S. death penalty verdicts for foreign nationals. The agreement, an optional protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, had frequently been used by death-penalty opponents to hand cases to a more congenial tribunal. In this case, the State Department reportedly withdrew after the International Court of Justice told the United States to hold new hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row.
    If the United States is not a signatory to a law, there are usually good reasons for it. In any event, it is Congress' prerogative, not the Supreme Court's, to decide whether the United States will accede to a given treaty or body of international law. What happens when Supreme Court justices ignore that fact?
    We ask the question because we may be close to the time when Congress must exercise its authority to vouchsafe the supremacy of U.S. law in the Supreme Court. Congress possesses the constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so it's worth examining precisely how it would do that. There's no question that such authority exists. Thomas Jefferson regarded judicial supremacy, the doctrine of those who disagree, as "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." He worried of a judiciary "working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one."
    In the book "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges," Robert Bork sees four possibilities to limit an overreaching judiciary. Two of these pertain to Congress. First, Congress could resort to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that "the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction . . . with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Another recourse would have Congress adopt a constitutional amendment "to permit the overruling of Supreme Court decisions by the full Congress or by the Senate."
    Mr. Bork's other two remedies are the prerogatives of presidents and political movements as much as Congress. A third is to appoint only judges who respect the Constitution, which is an ongoing labor. The fourth is a campaign to persuade the court of the error of its ways. Justice Scalia's dissents would seem to be a noble beginning of such a project.
    These four remedies are at least a worthy starting point for a discussion on reining in the judiciary. Such a discussion is urgently needed today. Without it, the Supreme Court will continue on a reckless path of disregard for U.S. law.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050312E   U.N. urges ban on cloning

By Irwin Arieff
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

NEW YORK -- A divided U.N. General Assembly, in a victory for the Bush administration, yesterday urged governments to ban all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos for stem-cell research.
    Capping four years of contentious debate, the assembly voted 84-34, with 37 abstentions, to approve a nonbinding statement on cloning. Thirty-six members were absent from the 191-member assembly.
    President Bush applauded the declaration.
    "The United States and the international community have now spoken clearly that human cloning is an affront to human dignity and that we must work together to protect human life," he said in a statement.
    The United States did not play a public role in promoting the statement. But it had worked behind the scenes, hand in hand with U.S. pro-life groups, to obtain a call for a blanket ban on all cloning.
    The measure was proposed by Honduras and generally supported by predominantly Roman Catholic countries, in line with Pope John Paul II's condemnation of human cloning. It was generally opposed by nations where stem-cell research is being pursued.
    Cathy Cleaver Ruse, director of planning for the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, hailed the vote as a "powerful statement in favor of the dignity and inviolability of human life."
    The United States and Britain, traditionally staunch allies in the United Nations, found themselves on opposite sides of the issue, and Britain condemned the "intransigence" of nations opposed to cloning for medical reasons.
    Many Islamic nations were among those abstaining, on grounds there was no U.N. consensus on the hot-button issue of whether stem-cell research was a valid medical pursuit or the destruction of human life.
    Opponents said the text was not legally binding and would have no impact on their scientists' pursuit of stem-cell research.
    The vote reflected a diversity of approaches around the world to the cloning issue.
    Countries such as Canada, Australia, France and Sweden have joined the United States in allowing the use of some existing human embryos for research, but banning the creation of embryos solely for research purposes.
    Brazil, Peru and Ireland are among the countries that prohibit all embryonic research.
    But Cuba, Israel, Japan and Singapore follow Britain in permitting research even on newly formed embryos, while China allows research on embryos younger than 14 days and also permits the implantation of human genes into animal eggs.
    South Korea has enacted a law that permits the cloning of human cells. Cloning human beings remains illegal, but scientists can use fertilized eggs that are not being used by fertility clinics.
    At the heart of the debate is so-called therapeutic cloning, in which human embryos are cloned to obtain stem cells used in medical studies and later discarded.
    Many scientists, backed by pro-cloning governments, say the technique offers hope for a cure to about 100 million people with such conditions as Alzheimer's disease, cancer, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.
    But the United States, Costa Rica, Italy and pro-life groups are among those arguing that this type of research, for whatever purpose, constitutes the taking of human lives.
    The U.N. debate began with a 2001 proposal by France and Germany for a binding global treaty banning the cloning of human beings, a plan that had broad international backing.
    But that effort failed last year after the Bush administration fought to broaden the ban to all cloning of human embryos, including therapeutic cloning.
    The assembly's treaty-writing legal committee, deeply divided, abandoned the idea of a treaty and decided instead to pursue a nonbinding declaration.
    Costa Rican Ambassador Bruno Stagno Ugarte praised the assembly vote as "a historic step" that recognized "that therapeutic cloning involves the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it."
    U.S. envoy Sichan Siv made only a brief comment welcoming the statement.
    But British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who voted "no," lamented "the intransigence of those who were not prepared to recognize that other sovereign states -- after extensive dialogue and due democratic process -- may decide to permit strictly controlled applications of therapeutic cloning."
 
    Researcher John Haydon contributed to this report.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050313E    Crisis of secularism

By Peter Ford
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

PARIS — "God is back among intellectuals," says Aleksander Smolar, a leading European thinker who heads the Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw and teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris.
    "You can feel there is a problem of soul in Europe; people are conscious of a void and there is a certain crisis of secularism," he said.
    Seeking to fill that void, several dozen faithful Catholics gathered one recent Tuesday evening, as they do each week, to pray in the freshly painted basement of St. Denys church in northern Paris.
    One after another, standing in a circle, they gave thanks aloud to God. One woman was grateful that an argument with her son had not gotten out of hand; another prayed for continued strength to keep looking for a job; a third, in tears, thanked the Lord "for helping me put up with all the humiliation I suffer."
    Then they all sang a simple hymn. Some swayed; some held their palms outstretched; others closed their eyes.
 
    'New Path Community'
    For the past nine years, St. Denys parish has been run by a priest from the "New Path Community," a charismatic Catholic movement that has borrowed much from the American Pentecostal tradition.
    While the pews in traditional Catholic churches have emptied, the New Path and similar congregations have blossomed, attracting thousands of believers to prayer groups and Sunday Mass across Europe.
    They are drawn, says parish priest Father Louis-Marc Thomy, "by the charisma of a community life. They say they feel unity and peace with us. And they find joy in rediscovering faith in a joyous manner."
    The prominent role that religion continues to play in American public life, meanwhile, has undermined the widespread European view that modern societies inevitably grow more secular, and that religion is an attribute of underdevelopment.
 
    Spirituality on rise
    "A preoccupation with spirituality is much more present now at a religious and philosophical level" than it was a few years ago, said Dominique Moisi, a French political analyst.
    In Britain, the country's largest bookseller has noticed that preoccupation, and moved to meet it. Expanding the shelf space it devotes to religious and spiritual books, "We have increased our range over the last few years," said Lucy Avery, a spokeswoman for the Waterstone's chain.
    Sales of such books rose by nearly 4 percent last year, she said, and titles like the Dalai Lama's "The Art of Happiness" and a modern-language "Street Bible" have become best sellers.
    "I have noticed that a lot of general-interest publishers are turning to religious books now for commercial reasons because that is what the public wants," said Laurence Vandamme, a spokeswoman for Cerf, the largest French religious publisher.
    In France, leading philosopher Regis Debray, once a comrade in arms of Che Guevara in the Bolivian mountains, has devoted two of his most recent books to explorations of God and religion. Le Monde, the French establishment's newspaper of record, this year introduced a glossy bimonthly "World of Religion."
 
    A need for meaning
    "The need for meaning affects the secularized and de-ideologized West most of all," wrote Frederic Lenoir, the editor of the new Le Monde magazine, in his first editorial. "Ultramodern individuals mistrust religious institutions ... and they no longer believe in the radiant tomorrow promised by science and politics; they are still confronted, though, by the big questions about origins, suffering and death."
    Rocco Buttiglione, a confidant of the pope who was denied a bid to join the European Commission last year because of his staunch Catholic views on social issues, has a ready answer to such questions. "For a long time they told us that science and math would give us the identity we need," he said.
    "Both failed. Now when Europeans ask themselves 'Who are we?' they don't have an answer. I suggest we are Christians."
    That opinion is not widely shared. Critics point to the millions of immigrant Muslim Europeans living in France, Germany, Britain and Spain, not to mention Europe's indigenous Muslims in the Balkans.
    Nor are there many signs of a resurgence of organized religion on a continent where church attendance has plummeted nearly everywhere in recent decades.
 
    74 percent believe
    Yet 74 percent of Europeans say they believe in God, a spirit or a life force, according to the latest findings of the European Values Study, a 30-year, continentwide survey. And youth workers in Britain are finding "consistent evidence ... that a secular generation is being replaced by a generation much more interested in spiritual issues," said Stuart Murray-Williams, a theologian at Oxford University who recently published a book entitled "After Christendom."
    A wide array of religious groups has sprung up across Europe to meet that generation's needs, most notably Buddhist communities.
    "I've noticed a steady increase in interest," said Suvannavira, a Russian-born, British-educated monk who runs the Western Buddhist Order's Paris outpost in a cramped storefront meditation center. "Our order has doubled in size since 1990."
    "The discourse has changed," Mr. Murray-Williams said. "Ten or 15 years ago, any mention of spiritual experiences would have drawn blank looks. Today people are hungry to talk about them."
    He said it's too soon to say what all this portends.
    "It will be a while before we know whether or not it is strong enough to challenge the culture of secularism," he said.
 
    What's it all about?
    Secularism is showing signs of wear, argues Jacques Delors, who once bemoaned Europe's lack of "soul" when he was president of the European Commission. "I fear that the construction of Europe is sinking into absolute materialism," he said. "Things aren't going well for society, so society is little by little going to start asking itself what life is for, what death is and what happens afterwards?"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050307C   The New Age Supreme Court

By David Limbaugh

The Supreme Court's decision barring execution of murderers who commit their crime before age 18 as cruel and unusual punishment is not only fundamentally flawed but also deeply troubling -- for more than just a few reasons.
    In its 5-4 decision on March 1, the court decreed: "Juveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among 'the worst offenders' who deserve to die." While I certainly respect that opinion, I strongly object to the U.S. Supreme Court presuming to impose it on our entire society as if it is the final arbiter not just of the law but our moral standards.
    Adding insult to injury, the court doesn't even deny its staggering presumptuousness. In the words of the ever-disappointing Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, "To implement this framework, we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."
    How much more explicit could the court be in affirming the shifting, baseless standards of moral relativism? Quite a far cry, is it not, from a constitutional and legal system grounded in the absolute standards emanating from the Judeo-Christian ethic?
    Forget the merits of the court's position in light of the rampant licentiousness that pervades our postmodern era. Such questions can be debated. But are you comfortable with the highest court of the land issuing a binding pronouncement that we have evolving standards of decency?
    What business is it of the court's to make such broad sweeping determinations having nothing whatever to do with law? Besides, I thought liberals objected to the "legislation" of morality, which is precisely what is involved here. The court, in its colossal arrogance, is rejecting the biblical view of the inherent depravity of human nature in favor of the humanistic, New Age precept that humankind is progressing on a linear path toward enlightenment.
    As if endorsing moral relativism were not enough, the court went on to misapply its own guidelines in interpreting what society's "evolving" moral standards happen to be at present. As Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent noted, these societal standards are to be gleaned by reference to a national consensus, which in turn is to be determined by an objective standard: statutes passed by society's elected representatives.
    But for the court to overturn its own precedents, such as the ones allowing execution in these cases, it must find not just a national consensus against the practice, but an overwhelming one. Instead, the evidence showed only 18 of the 38 states that allow capital punishment have outlawed such executions -- hardly a consensus, much less an overwhelming one. Indeed, if an overwhelming national consensus has emerged, why has the court decided to pre-empt juries -- who presumably embody that consensus -- in these cases?
    It boils down to the court substituting its own judgment for that of the people. In so doing, the court, as Justice Scalia also cogently demonstrated, cherrypicked the evidence and ignored any that was contrary to its desired findings.
    As just one example, the court accepted the American Psychological Association's (APA) claim that "scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions." But this same APA made a completely contradictory claim in a case previously considered by the court, in which it argued there is a "rich body of research" proving juveniles capable of deciding whether to get an abortion without parental advice.
    Regardless, I would much rather local juries make these determinations than five of nine self-appointed black-robed moral arbiters, especially considering that under current law, juries are required to take into account the murderer's age as a mitigating factor. If local juries can determine whether such children should be convicted of murder, why can't they decide whether they should be executed?
    There is at least an additional column's worth of other problems with the court's decision, such as its obscene, arbitrary and opportunistically convenient reference to foreign standards, and its misanalysis of the deterrence argument.
    I also note the incredible irony of the court -- in the process of proclaiming itself the final moral arbiter -- undermining its own authority in rewarding, instead of reprimanding, the Missouri Supreme Court for flagrantly ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court's own precedents.
    The court's disturbing decision underscores the growing relevance and urgency of my friend Mark Levin's "Men In Black," which I respectfully urge you again to purchase.
 
    David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050310C   The Big Ten

By Lawrence Kudlow

Much has been written about the Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry, which has at its center a monument of the Ten Commandments that has stood between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court in Austin since 1961. Thomas Van Orden wants to remove it. The state of Texas wants to keep it right where it is.
    The Ten Commandments should stay right where they are -- in all cases. Various monuments, structures, and statues of the Ten Commandments can be found all over the United States, including some highly visible spots in Washington, D.C.
    Courtesy of "God in the temples of government," a photo essay by Carrie Devorah in Human Events (the crusading national conservative weekly), we are reminded of three prominent monuments in the capital city: Moses and the Ten Commandments can be found in the rotunda of the Library of Congress, on the rear facade of the U.S. Supreme Court, and inside the Supreme Court's courtroom.
    The Ten Commandments are literally chiseled into the American way of life. But there is a campaign under way to rid this country of any and all religious references. This is part of the ongoing culture war that would stop religious expression in politics and the public square, even though we remain the most religious of all the major industrial countries. Fortunately, brave people like state attorney general Greg Abbott, who recently argued the Texas position in Van Orden v. Perry before the Supremes, want to keep it that way.
    Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since.
    The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation's legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives.
    I have a suspicion, however, that too many folks forget what's on that list of commandments, or maybe never learned them in the first place. And even if we do know the Ten Commandments by heart, it never hurts to read them through and contemplate them from time to time. So here's all 10:
    I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
    Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
    Honor thy mother and father.
    Thou shalt not kill.
    Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    Thou shalt not steal.
    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
    Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife.
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
    I have a few direct questions for you: Is it such a bad thing to think about not killing, not stealing, not lying and not committing adultery? Is it so bad to talk about honoring one's parents? Or to think about a power greater than oneself -- about God or some higher deity? Or to set aside just one day a week as a spiritual day, separate from the material strivings of the other six days?
    Trying to live by these moral and religious values is a worthy endeavor. No one of us is perfect; that status is God's alone. But if we strive for better values in our day-to-day lives, if we seek to meet the age-old standards of goodness and honesty, if we try to help our neighbors in all we do, won't we be better people, even if our imperfections cause us to fall short?
    I should think anyone who strolls the grounds of the Texas state capitol, and for one moment stops to read the Ten Commandments on the monument Mr. Abbott is trying to keep in place, will be the better for it.
    Moral commandments -- like most spiritual thoughts in this day and age -- seem too few and far removed from our usual toils and tribulations. But deep inside we all have a desire to live as better citizens, better spouses, better parents, better co-workers, and better friends. An occasional reminder about how to do so cannot be bad. No -- keeping the Ten Commandments in the public square must perforce be a good thing.
 
    Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050310C   High noon for judges

By Thomas Sowell

It is painfully ironic that we are promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.
    Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to same-sex "marriage," and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes.
    This naked exercise of judicial power has been covered by the fig leaf of pretending to "interpret" laws and the Constitution by stretching and twisting words beyond recognition.
    The merits of the particular policies or expenditures are not the issue. The real issue is much bigger: Are the people to elect their own representatives to decide issues or are unelected judges to take over an ever-increasing power to rule?
    This has happened gradually but steadily. Just as the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to our growing acceptance of immoral behavior as "defining deviancy down," so we have come to accept the steady erosion of democratic government as judges have defined democracy down.
    While people in various Middle Eastern countries begin stirring as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the religious ayatollahs in Iran. That is what makes the impending Senate battle over judicial nominees something much bigger than a current political squabble or a clash of senatorial egos.
    One way to stop the continuing erosion of the Americans' right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see the game played by the rules, "whether I like them or not."
    Judges with that philosophy are anathema to liberal Democrats in the Senate today. They know the only way many liberal policies can become law is by having them imposed by judges, because voters have increasingly rejected such policies and candidates who espouse them.
    The Senate's constitutional right and duty to "advise and consent" on the president's judicial nominees is being denied by a minority of Democratic senators who refuse to let these nominees be voted on. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they have the power to change Senate rules so a minority of senators can no longer prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial nominees.
    Such a rule change is referred to as "the nuclear option," since it would be a major change that could provoke major retaliation by the Democrats, both in obstructing current legislation and future use of the same rule to ride roughshod over Republicans when Democrats gain control of the Senate.
    An aging Supreme Court means there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
    Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans? President Bush clearly does but Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the larger constitutional issues. He is siding with the Democrats in the name of compromise.
    Sen. William Frist, the Republican majority leader, says he has the votes to change Senate rules to prevent a minority from denying the full Senate the right to vote on judicial nominees. Mr. Frist also had the votes to prevent Mr. Specter from becoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman but he didn't do so. He chose to avoid a fight.
    That is not a hopeful sign for what to expect when high noon comes on the president's judicial nominees.
 
    Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050311C   High noon for judges: Part II

By Thomas Sowell

One of the big confusions in the impending Senate fight over the confirmation of judicial nominees is that this is an issue about "liberal" judges versus "conservative" judges. The vastly more important issue is whether people who go into court should expect their cases to be decided on the basis of law or on the particular judge's own philosophy.
    The more we can keep judges' philosophy out of our legal system, the more we approach the ideal of "a government of laws and not of men." But we have been moving in the opposite direction for too long. Recent court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, show a continuing trend toward judicial activism, relying on notions outside the law and even outside the country.
    Liberals have rooted for judicial activism because this activism has favored liberal causes and liberal views on such issues as abortion, the death penalty, same-sex "marriage," and racial quotas. But activism can be used by any judge for any purpose.
    When Chief Justice Roger Taney said a black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" in the Dred Scott decision of 1857, he was turning his own personal opinion into the law of the land. As dissenting justices pointed out, free blacks had exercised legal rights, including the right to vote, even before the Constitution was written, as well as after. Taney was making law, not following law.
    Liberals seem to be taking the same myopic view of judicial activism they once took toward special prosecutors -- which seemed a great idea to them when special prosecutors were going after Republicans but suddenly not so great when Bill Clinton became the target.
    The issue of judicial activism is not just an issue of the moment. It is an enduring issue of great moment because it means erosion of the people's constitutional right to govern themselves. If activist judges are allowed to increasingly continue becoming our real rulers, what are elections for? Just to provide jobs for politicians?
    Public acceptance of judicial coups has only led to increasing audacity in words and deeds by activist judges. Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent decision banning the execution of murderers under the age of 18 was a classic case in point. It was based, he said, on "evolving standards" and a "national consensus," as well as on what people were saying in other countries. Even if all of this were true, none of these things is statutory law, much less the U.S. Constitution.
    It is incidental these things are not all true. What do pretty words like "evolving standards" mean except that some people agree with you even if the law says nothing of the sort? As for a "national consensus," we have elections to determine that and judges have no special expertise as pollsters.
    What all this vaguely romantic verbiage boils down to is that judges can treat the Constitution as simply a grant of power to act as philosopher kings and respond to whatever constituency they prefer to the voting public. That is lawless law.
    Such judicial behavior won't stop until it gets stopped. This might be done with congressional restrictions on court jurisdiction, with constitutional amendments, or by the other branches of government simply refusing to obey some judicial decisions, as President Andrew Jackson did long ago.
    Short of constitutional confrontations, however, a less dangerous option would be to appoint judges with a track record of supporting judicial restraint rather than activism. But this approach is blocked by liberal senators -- mostly Democrats but with a big assist from Pennsylvania's Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.
    Liberals understand the enduring high stakes in these judicial nominations. But do the Republicans? Republican senators have the votes to change Senate rules to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But they fear the Democrats will become even more obstructionist on other Senate business.
    If Senate Democrats are willing to disgrace themselves in public by blocking the functions of government during a war, so be it. Let them see how the public reacts to such irresponsibility. Or will the Republicans prefer to disgrace themselves by caving in?
 
    Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312C   High noon for judges: Part III

By Thomas Sowell

People who complain about the frivolous lawsuits that have outraged some and ruined others financially need to connect the dots to the present Senate controversy over the confirmation of federal judges.
    The attempt to replace activist judges with judges who follow the written law affects not only the basic democratic right of the voters to govern themselves through their elected representatives but also whether our legal system becomes a danger to ordinary citizens and a bonanza to lawyers who turn it into a legalized extortion racket.
    Once judges start disregarding the written law in favor of their own notions, ordinary citizens have no way of knowing in advance what decisions to expect from a given situation. We can read the written law but we cannot read judges' minds. So there is a large and growing gray area around our laws.
    That large gray area is a happy hunting ground for lawyers, who can threaten individuals, businesses, and even government agencies with frivolous lawsuits and get paid off to settle out of court, because nobody knows what might happen in court.
    Some people blame juries for outrageous verdicts and astronomical awards but many frivolous lawsuits would have been thrown out of court before they even reached a jury -- except that appellate court rulings, all the way up to the Supreme Court, have left the trial judges themselves uncertain what is and is not legal. So frivolous lawsuits often go to the jury, who are even less likely to have a clue and are more likely to be swayed by lawyers' rhetoric.
    The law as written may draw a sharp line between what is legal and what is illegal, but when that law is "interpreted" by judicial activists, all kinds of new notions may be added. Certain things may be legal but only if they do not create an "undue burden" or if they meet "evolving standards."
    This is called being "nuanced" and it is considered to be deep stuff. But try guessing what the law means with these vague provisos. What it really means in practice is uncertainty.
    Imagine if highway signs instead of saying "65 mph" said "No Undue Speed" or "Prudent Driving." The lawsuits over traffic laws alone would clog courts to a standstill.
    As bad as uncertainty is to people sued, it can be worth millions of dollars to a slick lawyer who knows how to concoct frivolous lawsuits and extort money for settling out of court. Such lawyers head for places where there are big bucks -- "deep pockets," as they are called.
    Among the reasons why this affects ordinary people is that many deep pockets get their money from a lot of much shallower pockets. Many of these shallower pockets belong to taxpayers who get stuck with the bill when government agencies get sued and pay off the legal sharks to go away.
    When your insurance company has to buy its way out of a frivolous lawsuit, guess whose premiums go up. When developers trying to build homes or apartment buildings get sued at every turn by environmental extremists, guess what that does to rents and mortgage payments.
    More than money is lost when judges muddy the waters with their own notions. Judicial activists imposing "due process" rules on schools have made it such a legal ordeal to get rid of disruptive or even violent students that it can be virtually impossible to impose the kind of discipline needed for learning.
    Similar judicial attempts to micromanage other institutions have made it hard to maintain order in prisons or to keep "street people" from being a constant nuisance or danger to ordinary citizens on the streets or children in the parks.
    Some people try to justify judicial activism by claiming there have been issues on which the public was wrong and the judges right. But nothing is easier than finding issues on which any given set of humans have been wrong -- including judges.
    There are high stakes for everyone in the coming Senate battle over judicial nominees said to be "out of the mainstream" because they don't support judicial activism. The mainstream of judicial activism is itself the real problem.
 
    Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050312C    Does the Constitution matter?

By Thomas P. Kilgannon

"Our Constitution," John Quincy Adams once wrote, "professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail." Until now, that is.
    These are tough times for the document that governs our republic. As was once asked of President Bill Clinton, it could be asked today of our Constitution -- is it relevant? Unfortunately, to many of our national leaders, it is not.
    Last summer, our beloved State Department found it in its purview to issue gold-plated invitations to foreign busybodies from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor our federal elections. Clearly, one of the French wannabes at