Rev. Barry W. Lynn: June 2009 Archives

Jay, give me a break.  Four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court yesterday reached the same conclusion that Judge Sonia Sotomayor did as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  The other five reached an alternative conclusion.  So, are you suggesting that Judge Sotomayor is out of the judicial mainstream?  Or are you suggesting that four sitting justices (technically, three because Justice Souter has retired) are out of the same mainstream?  Last week, Clarence Thomas was a lone dissenter in a case involving a strip search of a 14 year old woman at a high school.  Maybe he is out of the mainstream, too.  How many mainstreams are there? (The Alliance for Justice has done a new report on just how careful Judge Sotomayor is in civil rights cases.)

Yesterday's decision will play no significant role in the ultimate decision about Judge Sotomayor's elevation to the high court. She will be on the Supreme Court by the time oral arguments begin in October, and will likely be there for the special September rehearing in the case of the film/ad about Hillary Clinton which the Court also ordered yesterday.  No matter how much money the "Right" spends on ads and no matter how much nonsense Republican Senators spout about "original intent", "strict constructionism" and other code-words for "we don't like anybody Obama wants on the court", she will be approved by a clear Senate majority.
.

Of course, Jay, the treatment of religious and political dissidents in Iran is contrary to civilized standards of justice.  It is fine that President Obama has publicly rejected any "apology" for his condemnation of the government.  It is appropriate that Iranian diplomats have been "uninvited" to Fourth of July celebrations at US embassies around the world.  But now what?

I am always bemused by conservatives who howl in outrage but then never actually tell us what we should do. I trust you are not in favor of a pre-emptive strike against Iran.  So, then, what measures do you recommend, specifically?

The Lynchburg News and Advance reported on Liberty University's announcement yesterday that it was changing its policy in regard to student political clubs.  From now on, no partisan clubs, even the Republican Club, will be given "official" status or receive any student funding.  This is a significant step in the right direction.

As I mentioned before, I felt strongly that the previous policy of granting the campus Republicans preferential treatment  was a sort of "in kind" contribution to one party that could jeopardize Liberty University's tax exempt status.  Americans United actually filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service suggesting a timely investigation.

I have a certain endearing respect for Peeps, those marshmallow creations which used to be seen solely in the form of chickens and rabbits at Easter but now have a ubiquitous presence during every holiday period.  The creatures come from the Just Born candy company in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the place I grew up.  (Even earlier, during the Depression, my father swept floors at the company.)

Now, Peeps are playing a role, admittedly a supporting one, in a strange "religious liberty" case in Colorado. As reported in a local newspaper, Carol Burdick was evicted from her apartment for keeping her Easter decorations on her door 17 days after Easter, an alleged violation of her lease provision to keep all areas under the tenant's control "in a clean and sanitary condition." Her display included cardboard cutouts of chickens and rabbits, some plastic grass, and some Peeps.  Later this week she will argue that the leasing company violated Ms. Burdick's religious freedom.  Her lawyer noted: "You can't evict somebody for Easter bunny decorations.  An Easter decoration is a religious statement and should be protected-- even if it is just bunnies."

A breathless nation awaited yesterday's decision by the PBS board about whether to actually require its member stations to adhere to a basic rule.  OK, maybe it wasn't exactly the whole country holding its breath, but a handful of people were interested.

The PBS board met to decide whether member stations must actually follow bylaws passed in the mid-l980s. These bylaws stated that those stations receiving PBS programming should not air partisan, commercial or sectarian programming. For 25 years, the board has turned a blind eye to enforcing its restriction on sectarian programming, but after yesterday's vote, no longer. 

Stations will not be allowed to carry sectarian programming from here on out or they will lose their membership status, the board said. (This means that those stations would not have access to popular shows like "Sesame Street" and "The News Hour.") That's a good decision. There's no reason for PBS stations to show proselytizing or evangelistic programming, particularly with the explosion of television channels available in recent years.  With PBS paid for partly with taxpayer dollars, it's perfectly defensible constitutionally to forbid religious programming. And with plenty of other broadcast opportunities for religious programming, PBS is by no means required to provide them a forum.

Jay, I'd like you to revisit a little blog-versation we had a few months back.  A Department of Homeland Security memo had suggested that it was important for law enforcement agents to concern themselves with domestic, not just foreign, terrorist...

As you know, Jay, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the many of the people you represent around the world.  There are strong human rights arguments to be made in asylum cases in Europe--and frankly strong ones to...