You have to give the folks at MassResistance credit: When they decide they don’t like you, they really let you have it. Today, I ran across this gem, which unloads on my employer (which is simply not involved in politics), unloads on Governor Romney (calling him “criminal”), and then has this exquisite paragraph about me:
Stovall’s colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French — who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo “conservatives” as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow — is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for “conservatism,” but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for “Slick Willard” Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based “Marriage.”
This is some great stuff–and even more strident than this piece which is content with merely accusing me of “nihilism” and neglects to call for the end of my law practice.
Why the hate? I’ve explained it before:
The malice really has little or nothing to do with Governor Romney [or me]. Instead–and this is vitally important to understand–Governor Romney merely represents the vehicle (a highly public vehicle) for grinding axes within the conservative movement itself.
What do I mean by that? To explain, I have to air a bit of the dirty laundry of the social conservative movement (especially its Christian component). In reality, we are not a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Rather than working together in a spirit of unity to attack problems that we all agree are real, many Chistian conservatives spend enormous time, energy, and effort determining who is and who is not a “real” conservative and–even worse–arguing who is a “real” Christian. This debate takes place largely outside the sight and hearing of the Christian conservative mainstream (and definitely outside the media’s consciousness), and–consequently–when the debate does see the light of day, it can be both confusing and shocking.
So what is that debate? It is the same debate that surrounded former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore when he refused to comply with a court ruling ordering a Ten Commandments monument out of the Alabama state courthouse. Virtually every social conservative activist in America agrees that an out-of-control judiciary presents perhaps our most difficult political challenge. Leftist judges are responsible for the horror of abortion-on-demand, for the cleansing of religion from the public square, for same-sex marriage, and even for eroding our warfighting capability in the War on Terror. In accomplishing these ends, these judges typically ignore the original intent of the constitution and often ignore the text itself, writing opinions that would cause America’s founders to spin in their graves and exacting huge social costs on our country.
So what should we do? Roy Moore’s answer was one of bold and startling simplicity: If a court order violates the original intent of the constitution, then ignore it. Defy it. Disobey it. For generations of Christians raised on the intellectual dishonesty and hostility of the contemporary judiciary, Moore’s stance certainly has a certain kind of appeal. When you combine Moore’s actions with the impressive amount of scholarship that can justify his reading of the constitution, then you have the beginnings of a movement.
Countering Moore were the–for lack of a better term–”rule of law” conservatives. Our constitutional argument was (I think) a bit deeper and more credible than Moore’s. While I grant Moore’s points regarding original intent, I also recognize that there is a constitutional structure–a balance of powers–that is every bit (if not more) important to our public life than the interpretation of any given constitutional provision. In other words, if a branch of government behaves unconstitutionally, then there exists a lawful, constitutional method for correcting that branch.
To get the full context, read the entire post.
If you’re interested in the actual legal substance of the dispute regarding the specific issue of same-sex marriage in the Massachusetts, we have written about the issue here and here.
If the MassResistance folks come up with any new arguments (their current effort, while delightful to read, doesn’t contain anything original), I’ll be more than pleased to respond. As of now, it’s just January all over again.
Except warmer. Much warmer.