Focus on James Dobson

This is the headline and news blurb about the "nuclear option" on Dobson's Focus on the Family site. I was going to excerpt it, but really think you need to read the whole thing to begin to comprehend the pure demagoguery and ridiculousness of this man and his organization.

Time is Running Out to Strike a Blow Against Judicial Tyranny

Judicial tyranny? I thought the problem was with the legislature, the Senate in particular. Let's read on.

Key senators in several states still need to hear from their constituents on the importance of stopping the Senate filibusters that are denying qualified judicial nominees a simple up-or-down. If you believe in the Constitution, the time is now for you to take a stand to ensure its survival.

You can do so by letting one or both of your senators know, today, that you have had enough of filibusters to stop qualified judges from serving on the federal courts. This obstructionism, unprecedented in U.S. history, is being carried out by Democrats simply because they don't want men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution to be confirmed to the bench.

Do you believe in the Constitution? Well, you need to ensure its survival by making sure that (Bush's) judicial nominees get a "simple up-or-down", although no where in the Constitution is the demand for a "simple up or down" specified.

And this "obstructionism" is "unprecedented in American history"? Well, only if you consider that Republicans have rarely been in charge of all branches of government is it "unprecedented".

And what's the deal with "men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution"? Is it possible for a strict interpretation to be against what Dobson and his gang want, or is it simply a rhetorical device to mean interpret the Constitution in a way that's favorable for Big Business and the goals of theocracy?

What kind of judges do the liberals want? Those like the ones who allowed Terri Schiavo to be starved and dehydrated to death. Those like the ones who don't believe it should be illegal for abortionists to suck the brains out of nearly-delivered children. Those who believe pornography showing women being raped, mutilated and defecated upon is protected by the First Amendment, but the Ten Commandments are not.

Um, since I have a number of Bibles at home, Bibles I purchased from various retail establishments, and these Bibles contain the Ten Commandments (as well as the Beatitudes and other instructions), and as I have not been arrested or even challenged about possessing Bibles with such commandments in them, then I would have to say that I think the Ten Commandments are protected under the First Amendment. And since the Second Commandment is that you shall not make unto yourselves any graven images like unto anything that is in heaven, and since the First Amendment doesn't say anything about abortion or pornography but does say that Congress (and the states by way of the 14th Amendment) shall not establish a religion, then I think this apples to oranges comparison is just silly.

Keeping judges like this in power is the real motivation for the blockade of President Bush's judicial nominees. That's why the "constitutional option" for ending this impasse must be enacted: restoring Senate tradition to ensure nominees with the support of a majority of senators are confirmed. That is, after all, the process as it is has been observed for more than 200 years.

200 years? Um, no it hasn't. 60-some Clinton nominees never made it onto a Committee agenda, much less onto the floor where a "simple up or down" could have been allowed.

Below, youll find the names of senators in several key states, if both are listed, its because both are resistant to constitutionally ending Democrats filibusters. If you live in one of these states, please take a few minutes to call them at all of the district office numbers youll find when you click on their names, and politely deliver this simple message: "Stop judicial filibusters by enacting the constitutional option."

Constitutionally ending Democratic filibusters? Are there unconstitutional ways to end Democratic filibusters? Is it that Democratic filibusters are unconstitutional or filibusters in general? If justices "deserve a simple up or down", shouldn't all legislation and procedure? ARe there no allowances for supermajority votes, such as treaties, and Constitutional amendments? If they enjoy "majority" support, why can't they be passed, too?

You might also want to reemphasize that message in a followup email, using the forms you'll find on the contact information page you get when you click on each senator's name. If you don't live in one of these states, your senators have come down on one side or the other in this debate. You can still make your views known to them, however, by visiting the CitizenL:ink Action Center and typing your ZIP code into the space provided.

Phewwww! I don't know about you, but I've become dumberer already just by reading this.