March 13, 2003
III of "Bombing His Way Into the Jaws of Armageddon":
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
For the Introduction to this BuzzFlash Editorial Series on Bush's Hijacking of God, see http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/11.html.
* * *
Part III: Democracy "Obscures" the Divine Authority Behind Government, Says Antonin Scalia
December, 2000: It was the critical moment for American democracy in the first year of a new millennium. The Florida State Supreme Court had ruled that the accurate counting of votes was vital to determining whether Al Gore or George W. Bush was the winner in Florida. The Federal Appeals Court for the Southwest (Eleventh Circuit) had ruled that the State Supreme Court was acting within its states' rights powers in doing so.
The Bush campaign appealed its request for a stay to stop the recount to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal scholars and pundits predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in light of the obsessive emphasis placed on states' rights by its right wing faction, would side with the appeals court and allow the recount to continue.
But the scholars and pundits were wrong. They didn't realize that Antonin Scalia and God were on the side of George W. Bush.
On Saturday, December 9, Antonin Scalia wrote the following statement in support of stopping the Florida recount: "the counting of the votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon which he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."
It was a brazen and Orwellian declaration. What pro-democracy American could claim that something was wrong with counting votes "first"? What pro-democracy American could declare one candidate the winner and protect him from "irreparable harm" if a vote count showed him not to be the winner, after all? Of course, it doesn't make a whit of sense, unless you realize what Scalia didn't reveal in his transparently partisan remarks.
Scalia believed that the issue of whether or not Bush won the election was almost irrelevant. Scalia, like Bush and his right wing cartel, believes that the American government is divinely inspired and that democracy should take a back seat to God.
And when God picked a winner, through Scalia and his four Supreme Court cronies, God chose a "believer," someone who claims to have been "saved" by Jesus. Al Gore was prima facie one of the "fallen," in Scalia's world view. After all, he was a secular Democrat. Even if Gore were, as he is, an observant Christian, he is fallen because, well, Democrats are all fallen.
revealed his true hand when he spoke on the subject
of capital punishment at the University of Chicago (in
February of 2002). Scalia, during his remarks, stated: "The
reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy
to obscure the divine authority behind government should
not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat
it as effectively as possible." ("God’s Justice
and Ours" at
A BuzzFlash reader saw this quotation awhile back and wrote the following letter to us (as excerpted):
Ah, the evildoer strikes again! Sounds familiar doesn't it? In fact, there's a straight connection between Bush believing that he was divinely placed in the White House and Scalia believing that God's guidance and spirit determines the destiny of our nation. Bush was indeed placed in the White House by a man who felt it was his "divine duty" to put a "saved" man there to protect this Godly nation from the heathen Democrats.
An October, 2002, article in "The Nation" discusses Scalia's view of the theological underpinnings of the U.S. government:
persons Scalia deems "not saved" --
the nonbelievers as he calls them -- are equivalent to
the Native American "heathens" mentioned by
Scalia disdainfully dismisses, for instance, any opposition to capital punishment, because the lord, he believes, sanctioned it in the Constitution:
Given that George W. Bush gleefully executed well in excess of a hundred people while he was governor of Texas, you can begin to appreciate that Scalia, in December of 2000, firmly believed that Bush had been tested by Jesus and had proven his "Christian" bonafides. Scalia, like Bush, is obsessed by exercising the power to kill people. As Scalia indicates, to him this is the mark of a true Christian nation.
In his remarks at the University of Chicago, Scalia passionately opines:
And so we have come full circle from December 2000 to March 2003. Scalia, who, in his own mind, implemented God's will by leading the coup that appointed George W. Bush president, believes that a president's "moral authority" comes directly from God.
Scalia must proudly beam when he hears Bush's macabre threats, such as this one, as told to Bob Woodward: "[W]e will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil."
After all, George W. rules as a result of divine intervention, assisted by one Antonin Scalia. And, Lord knows, God just gets a special thrill out of killing people through his anointed one, the king of America. Isn't that right, Antonin?
* * *
Also see these BuzzFlash editorial and commentary archives:
For Introduction to this series see Part I: "Shock and Awe"
I: "Shock and Awe"
II: The Divine Right of Kings and The Madness of King George
Bush Play Chess?
Is the Pope Aiding and Abetting Terrorism?
Profiles in Prophecy: Which Armageddon Angle is Right for You?
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: Scalia and Bush share another common theological outlook on government. Like Bush, Scalia not only believes our Constitution is a Christian document, he also believes that he knows God's intentions better than religious leaders. In this case, Scalia, who is Catholic, states that the Pope is not interpreting God's intentions correctly when the Pope states his opposition to capital punishment. Similarly, Bush knows God better than the leaders of most religious denominations in the United States and the Pope.
Yes, we truly do have a divine government, with arrogant, dangerous men at the helm, who are-self-appointed, unassailable interpreters of God's intentions.
otherwise noted, all original