Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker indicated on the show he was a proponent of the “Seven Mountains Mandate,” an explicitly theocratic doctrine at the heart of Christian nationalism.
Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the concurring opinion in last week’s explosive Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos have the same rights as living children, recently appeared on a show hosted by self-anointed “prophet” and QAnon conspiracy theorist.
Parker was the featured guest on “Someone You Should Know,” hosted by Johnny Enlow, a Christian nationalist influencer and devoted supporter of former President Donald Trump. Over the course of an 11-minute interview, Parker articulated a theocratic worldview at odds with a functioning, pluralistic society.
“God created government,” he told Enlow, adding that it’s “heartbreaking” that “we have let it go into the possession of others.”
Partisan judges are automatically unqualified.
Wrong
We need partisan leftist judges to crack down on cops, slumlords, union busting, discrimination, and other vile expressions of rightist ideology.
To me, the things you mentioned lean more towards basic human rights. I don’t think it would be fair to call a judge partisan if he or she rules to preserve those. But I’m just a dude on the internet. Happy Friday friend!
You aren’t wrong, and and yet all those things I mentioned fall on partisan lines anyway. The problem isn’t partisanship, it’s right-wingers. If we got rid of those judges and replaced them with leftist partisans instead we could actually start fixing things. Justice is political, you can’t escape that!
But I’m just a girl with a dream. 😏
I don’t think you are wrong either. I just think that the word partisan might be too strong? Ideally, I’d like my judges neutral, but where do you find those nowadays right?
Stay safe sis.
I think that’s a trick the right played on us, to convince us that we should be apolitical and stop us from getting politically organized. Meanwhile, they’re explicitly partisan and that’s why they keep winning. Basic human rights aren’t neutral and we shouldn’t be either.
Reject idealism. Embrace politics. Solidarity forever. ✊
Everything is about perspectives and everything has nuance that must be taken into account. Yes, that can be really fucking annoying and sometimes works against our hopeful outcomes and does cause our good soundbite moments to be tarnished. There is not a singular universal argument in favor or against every single possible concept we create as a thinking society. To some extent, everything as we conceptualize it is malleable.
Your whole argument looks wholesale more about rejecting politics to embrace idealism. Which is a good thing in my estimation, and seems better situated to have outcomes more inline with what you, and we all, may be looking for out of life in general. Basic human rights aren’t political, they’re an ideal that goes beyond the limitations of politics.
So in that way, the following works exactly the same towards your preferential outcomes:
Reject politics. Embrace Idealism. Solidarity forever.
Okay so if you reject politics you literally can’t get judges appointed. 👀
With that out of the way-
“Rights”, as a concept, are inherently political. A right is literally a political carve-out that enshrines a mandate and creates a political obligation to uphold it. Idealism can be employed to support certain rights, but rights themselves can only exist through politics.
The core belief system of the United States of America has always been to have fair and impartial judges. It’s not a conspiracy theory from either side.
Having said that, either side would love to stack the court system in their favor, and the conservatives especially have been actively working on that for quite a while now.
As Americans, we shouldn’t allow that to happen (FFS vote smart on judges!), either way. There’s a reason why Justice is always shown with a scale.
The bipartisan consensus is right-wing because America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.