Social Conservatism: The Road Ahead

[Pure]

Social Conservatism: The Road Ahead

In an era of 'social conservatism' in a 'national security' state, one can expect greater public attention to so-called private areas and morality. There will be increasing incidents of social intervention, what liberals will call spying, prying, meddling, shaming, and coercion. (Most of these alleged 'private areas' are not mentioned as such in the Constitution.)

Although the liberal media may talk of social conservatism as concern of a small minority, it is the view of probably a majority of Protestants, many Catholics, segments of the Jewish community, and majorities of the Islamic faith. It affirms adult authority; the state as expressing and supporting society's morality; family sanctity in the face of the state; marriage as heterosexual and lifelong; sex before marriage as wrong, and especially unfortunate in its consequences for female youth.

Through democratic means, and timely recourse to courts, these numbers will rule.

Social conservatives use a variety of means that cause uneasiness, even fear, in liberals and 'free thinkers.' While some steps, at first, may seem extreme, talk of death, killing, 'nation in peril' will ease the transition into unheard of measures of public involvement, such as existed in Puritan New England.

On the positive side, the movement can offer security, authority, leadership, and 'a culture of life.'
----

Library cards are now, in the Patriot Act, subject to monitoring. Reading affects thoughts; thoughts affect actions.

The talk will be of 'national security.'
----------

Gay sex must cease to be talked of as an 'acceptable lifestyle', though likely there should be no criminal penalties for acts of (two) adults in private, except for recruitment of those under 18. It may be presented to prepared high school students in sociology, along with other social deviance, such as compulsion to gambling.

Again, gay sex should be equated with anal sex, sodomy, and risk of death.

In some limited secular areas, 'don't ask, don’t tell' may be preserved. But there may be job related restrictions on gay persons. A gay person teaching an ethics class is like having a prostitute--of either gender--teaching sex education.
-------

On 'the holocaust' in particular, regarding the preborn citizens.

The terminology will always be 'murder of innocent children.'

The first problem is to identify the imperiled tiny persons.

Random pregnancy tests at place of work.

Hotlines--like 'crimestoppers'--with rewards for reporting someone's 'larger' silhouette or missed period.

Pregnancy tests should be available through specific request at the drugstore, as before, but the name of the purchaser is to be recorded for the government database.

If positive, there is assignment of a Social Security or other tracking number (as on a passport).

Innocent lives must be registered, followed and traced.

Each pregnant female to be designated with a non-removable bracelet with the label "BB," bearing baby, and that baby's ID number.

As before, a woman wishing to end a pregnancy must convince three doctors, one a woman, one nominated by the state from a traditional religious group (that of the mother, where possible). There must be clear and convincing, objective, medical evidence of danger to her life, or of extreme danger to her physical health. (Speculations as to 'suicidal tendencies' are not to be relevant; nor are circumstances of conception, e.g. rape).

Unexplained 'disappearance' of any preborn person will be treated just as any other, say, of a prominent citizen. There should be publicity. In some cases, talk of 'foul play.'

It is probable that social shaming and pressures, as in the past, will curb mothers' destruction of the 'pre born.' As will the consequences of 'self help.' Further, there might be publication of names: What happened to the baby of Janet Williams? The child's father may be mentioned as not having been willing to care for his child.

Where there is clear and present danger to preborn, some mothers will face increased surveillance and restrictions--e.g., no taking drugs.

For doctor's violating the guidelines, automatic loss of license, and prosecution may be in order. These persons should be likened to the SS 'hit men' of the holocaust. Church related hospitals may fire them.

Though supported by a majority of women, these measures may be called, 'anti-woman.' But one does NOT enhance women's social position by mass murder of the inconvenient preborn, rather by affirming their God given destiny as bearers and protectors of life.

=====
-------

Teen sex is obviously fueled by TV, condoms, and a number of factors. Social conservatives recognize teen sex is offensive and mortally perilous (condoms don't stop AIDS, it is said). So it is time to put the condoms back behind the counter. Instruction about their use, in so-called 'sex education' (=promotion) classes must cease.

Teens require more monitoring, so perhaps random vaginal swabs at the high schools, to look for traces of sperm. (There are particular concerns for young females.) Some 'civil liberties' persons will cry that this is invasive, that minors have 'rights.' But lives are at stake.
--------

Adult fornication--sex outside of marriage--may not be directly controllable in developed countries, but the 'third world' persons must not escape the consequences. The US must help the Roman Catholic and other churches prevent the further distribution and availability of condoms.

This is especially true in AIDS-prevalent areas. Those persons who fornicate or commit adultery must face the results, including destruction of loved ones (as was the case with syphilis). As in the OT, countries fall into ruin through rampant apostasy and immorality.

That is 'natural law.' 'Death' is the price of sin.

------

Environments run by a church, mosque or synagogue or religious groups are best to control the above problems.

At a church-related school board, a teacher's attempted abortion is grounds for firing. Church run universities are in a position to set 'Codes of Conduct.' These codes effectively move outside the slow, now irrelevant, secular approach of the Bill of Rights: charges, 'trials,' criminal courts of justice. Instead, tribunals with limited appeals. A professor at such an institution, who promotes a 'gay lifestyle,' may be severed on religious grounds.

Church run NGOs, foreign aid agencies are in a position to set conditions for food supplies, medical supplies etc.
--------

To justify what some liberals and civil libertarians would call meddling, extreme talk, then, takes two forms--regarding the nation: security; patriotism vs. treason; the mushroom cloud, etc.. Regarding immorality: the (actual) death, killing, massacre of innocents, holocaust. There will be some unfortunate deaths resulting from the above, but most are brought upon persons by themselves, and the others are collateral damage in the holy struggle for "one Nation under God."

 

[Guest]

Cunting fuckwit ideology.

 

[SeaCat]

At first I thought this was serious but the further I read the harder I was laughing. The only sad thing I can find about this is there are people out there who feel and belive this way.

Cat

BTW I copied this and sent it to some friends of mine, two priests, and a Rabbi. I'm sure they will be just as amused as I was. (My wife was wondering why I was laughing so hard.)

Have you ever tried to type while laughing? It's not easy.

 

[gypsywitch]

Cunting fuckwit ideology.

*stalk*

 

[CharleyH]

Cunting fuckwit ideology.

Hm. Hmm. I must think. ASS! Yet you have points for that, though

YOU FUCK WAD!!! Where is Cookie?

 

[Guest]

BTW I copied this and sent it to some friends of mine, two priests, and a Rabbi.

You know the two priests and a Rabbi?

They were in my bar the other day.

 

[CharleyH]

you are all off point now.

 

[Pure]

Sc

Apparently a number of social conservatives are pushing for Roy Moore*
(of 10C fame) for Supreme Court (rather than the cryptoliberal Gonzales). Now there would be a breath of fresh air.

*bio at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

btw is there anyone out there to whom Gonzales is starting to look good for the highest judicial office (by comparison).??

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I think I would prefer Dudley Moore if he wasn't dead.

(Turns slowly, surveying the field)

Yup! Dudley Moore even if he IS dead.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Apparently a number of social conservatives are pushing for Roy Moore*
(of 10C fame) for Supreme Court (rather than the cryptoliberal Gonzales). Now there would be a breath of fresh air.

*bio at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

btw is there anyone out there to whom Gonzales is starting to look good for the highest judicial office (by comparison).??

So far he is still holding the lead on Martin Borman, Judge Roy Bean and Wilhelm Frick. He has, however, lost ground to Mr. Mcgoo, Magilla Gorilla, and Maleficient.

I don't know how he plans to gain enough ground on Beast Butler to break into the top 100,000.

 

[Pure]

Social Conservative favorite for the Supreme Court

Ever kept after school?

[Emilio Garza, possible Supreme Court nominee] Agreed with a decision by the 5th Circuit as a whole to reverse a ruling in favor of the father of a 14-year-old girl who sued a Texas school district on a civil rights violation after his daughter was kept after school by her teacher and then raped in an empty classroom. The court found that schools do not have a constitutional duty to protect students, who, unlike prisoners and mental patients, return home each day. (Doe v. Hillsboro Independent School District, 1997) [see url in final excerpts, below]

Who is Emilio Garza ?

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/06/profile_of_pote_5.html

Friday, June 10, 2005

Profile of Potential Supreme Court Nominee - Judge Emilio Garza

Candidates > Garza | Posted by Anisha Dasgupta at 07:46 AM

Brief biography
Judge Garza sits on the Fifth Circuit and lives in San Antonio, Texas. Prior to joining the Fifth Circuit, he was a federal district court judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (1988-1991) and a state district court judge for the district of Bexar County, Texas (1987-1988). Judge Garza has also been an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Clemens, Spencer, Welmaker & Fink in San Antonio (1976-1987) and a Captain in the United States Marine Corps. Judge Garza served in the Marine Corp from 1970 to 1979, with active duty from 1970 to 1973.

Judge Garza was born in 1947. He attended the University of Notre Dame (B.A., 1967; M.A. 1970) and the University of Texas Law School.

Useful weblinks
SCOTUSblog offers a longer profile of Judge Garza (Part I, Part II,Part III,Part IV, Part V)

Notable opinions
Click on link below.


A majority opinion in Comancho v. Texas Workforce Commission, 2005 WL 995675 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005), holding that state rules that allowed termination of Medicaid benefits if recipients failed to ensure their children's immunizations, wellness check-ups, school attendance, or failed to avoid substance abuse were inconsistent with, and thus preempted by, federal law permitting termination of benefits only for refusal to engage in one of twelve work activities enumerated in the federal statute.

A majority opinion in U.S. v. Bird, 401 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2005), holding that the Fifth Circuit's previous ruling that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause should stand because the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) did not materially affect that ruling.

A majority opinion in Wallace v. County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2005), holding that county health inspectors' statements that county officials were purposefully ignoring health violations in order to appease installers and builders of septic tanks involved matters of public concern and hence merited First Amendment protection.

A majority opinion in Sierra Club v. Peterson, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000) (en banc), dismissing a challenge to the Forest Service's forest management practices in Texas, which included clearcutting, on the grounds that Forest Service practices were not final agency actions and thus were not subject to judicial review. Though the environmental groups bringing the challenge cited twelve specific timber sales that they alleged were in violation of the NFMA, Judge Garza held that the management program did not constitute "an identifiable action or event" as required under Lujan.

A majority opinion in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 195 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1999) (en banc), holding that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he threatened, harassed, and handcuffed a mother, in front of her young children, for violating the Texas seat belt law. Judge Garza found that the officer had probable cause to arrest Atwater because she failed to wear a seat belt, failed to belt her children, was driving without a license, and failed to produce proof of insurance. He also held that the warrantless arrest was within the officer's discretion because the arrest was not "extraordinary" and was not "'unusually harmful' to Atwater's privacy interests."

A majority opinion in United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1999), as revised March 24, 1999, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 845 (1999), holding that the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure requiring that a criminal defendant be present for sentencing precludes sentencing via video conferencing because the defendant must be physically present in the courtroom.

A majority opinion in United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 1999), holding that the fact of whether a firearm used in a crime of violence was a machine gun was a sentencing element under the relevant statute, not an essential element of an offense, and therefore did not have to be found by a jury. The Supreme Court reversed 9-0. 530 U.S. 120 (2000).

A special concurrence in Flores v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 456 (2000), strongly criticizing the validity of expert testimony on future dangerousness given by a psychiatrist who had never actually examined the defendant.

A special concurrence in Causeway Med. Suites v. Ieyoub, 109 F.3d 1096 (5th Cir. 1997). The majority held that a Louisiana parental notification statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Garza's concurrence joined the holding with the qualification that he found himself "forced to follow a Supreme Court opinion I believe inimical to the Constitution." Judge Garza then advocated an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, taking a critical view of substantive due process rights doctrine.

In Doe v. Hillsboro Independent School District, 113 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1997)(en banc), Judge Garza concurred in a decision limiting the liability of a school for a school janitor's rape and assault of a 13-year old female student. The en banc court held that despite compulsory attendance, no special relationship existed between student and school that gave rise to a constitutional duty of schools to protect students from private actors. The court also held that the school was not liable under a "state-created danger" theory, nor was it liable for failing to check the criminal background of the custodian. Judge Garza concurred specially to clarify his skepticism of Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1994), an earlier Fifth Circuit decision finding a Fourteenth Amendment due process right of bodily integrity to be free of rape and sexual abuse. Judge Garza noted that the Supreme Court had not yet interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to confer such a right and that the expansion of such substantive due process rights had often been discouraged by the Court.

----
See portrait in Texas Newspaper

http://www.mysanantonio.com/global-...ies/MYSA070305.1A.justice_garza.2ee8b1d1.html

Judge's actions speak louder than words

Web Posted: 07/03/2005 12:00 AM CDTMaro Robbins
Express-News Staff Writer

While the question of who will become the next U.S. Supreme Court justice is a full-time guessing game in Washington, San Antonio faces a mystery on its own doorstep:

Emilio who? The San Antonio native widely considered a leading contender to fill the vacancy created by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation Friday is virtually unknown in the county where he was born, raised and still resides.

A low profile comes with the job of federal appeals judge — glamour seldom shines in quiet law libraries — but Judge Emilio M. Garza, who declined interview requests, lowers the profile even more. "He's a guy who stays home a good deal, not that he's a recluse," said George Spencer Jr., a former partner of Garza's in the law firm then known as Clemens, Spencer, Welmaker & Finck. Spencer and others who encounter Garza professionally know him to be gracious, hardworking, churchgoing and forthright, but few see him regularly.

The baby-faced bachelor often is described as a loner who zealously guards against appearances of impropriety and has, as a result, distanced himself from many of the local colleagues he once worked alongside. His office on Northwest Loop 410 has no name, title or insignia on the sign outside its entrance. It isn't even listed on the directory in the building's lobby.

His private persona is balanced, however, by very public rulings, the product of 14 years on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has final say on most questions of federal law from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Strong, conservative opinions in cases involving religion and abortion spice his record. And demographics only sweeten his political appeal. At 57, Garza is not too old to serve a decade or two on the high court. The son of Mexican immigrants, he would be the first Hispanic justice since Benjamin Cardozo, who was of Portuguese descent.

This portfolio should push Garza high on the White House's list of potential nominees, said Sean Rushton, director for the Committee for Justice, a group formed by a former White House counsel to lobby for conservative judicial appointees.
[...]

Ethnicity, however, is a factor that could give Garza an edge over other rivals. President Bush has aggressively courted Hispanic voters and reportedly would like to name a Latino to the court.

His first choice is believed to be his longtime ally Alberto Gonzales, now the attorney general. Gonzales, however, voted, as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court in ways that alienated opponents of abortion. Garza is touted by some as the anti-Gonzales. Garza, unlike Gonzales, would unite conservatives and divide liberals, said Miranda, now chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition group that supports conservative judicial nominees.

Democrat senators might hesitate to oppose Garza because he's Hispanic, while liberal activists would adamantly challenge him because his opinions have been hostile to civil rights and abortion rights. Another less-cited alternative Hispanic might be Danny J. Boggs, chief of the federal appeals court based in Cincinnati.

Garza, however, is considered to have an advantage over Boggs, because the Ohio judge is of Cuban and Panamanian descent while Garza's roots would resonate with more Hispanic Americans. "I think, as far as Hispanics go, if it's not Gonzales, the president will turn to Garza," Miranda said.

[...]

-------
-------
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Emilio_Garza

[...]
Garza has routinely upheld Texas executions, even when the defendant's attorney slept through the trial. [...]

=====

Civil Rights and Liberties

Agreed with a decision by the 5th Circuit as a whole to reverse a ruling in favor of the father of a 14-year-old girl who sued a Texas school district on a civil rights violation after his daughter was kept after school by her teacher and then raped in an empty classroom. The court found that schools do not have a constitutional duty to protect students, who, unlike prisoners and mental patients, return home each day. (Doe v. Hillsboro Independent School District, 1997)

Dissented from an earlier decision finding that a 15-year-old girl whose teacher had sex with her had a winning civil rights claim, on the theory that schoolchildren have a liberty interest in their bodily integrity. Garza's dissent argued that the school district was not liable because the state did not authorize the teacher's behavior. He joined in another dissent noting that the girl "was of sufficient age to bear children" and arguing that it was not clearly established that she was "sufficiently immature" to warrant a finding that she'd been sexually abused by the sex with her teacher. (Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 1994)

[...]