Monday, October 31, 2005

Why The Supreme Court Matters: The Boy Scouts of America Example

The Pres and his nominee this morning.

I like to try to boil these big national issues down to their everyday importance. Here's a down-home example of the way in which the Supreme Court affects us in our lives.

President Bush visits with a delegation from the Boy Scouts of America during the presentation of the annual report by the BSA in the Oval Office Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003.

Probably most of those who read this blog are not sufficiently involved with the Boy Scouts of America to be fully aware of the Scouts' recent battles with the ACLU. I posted on this at length in August, including the following:

That's why the assault on the Boy Scouts is important for everyone, regardless of whether you, or anyone close to you, are ever associated with the scouts. It's also why it was so important that George W. Bush be elected and re-elected President. Remember: In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Scouts' policy against allowing openly gay adult Scout leaders to serve. The Scouts won that battle, with the Court deciding that a state may not,through its nondiscrimination statutes, prohibit the Boy Scouts from adhering to a moral viewpoint and expressing that viewpoint in internal leadership policy, and that a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court therefore violated the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of freedom of association.

The Supreme Court vote in Dale was 5 to 4. There were four justices willing to uphold the New Jersey Supreme Court and prevent the Scouts from setting their own internal policies for adult leaders. If a single justice had voted the other way, the national moral standard would already be changed and the Boy Scouts as we know them would likely no longer exist.

Ask yourself: With one more justice appointed by a President Gore or a President Kerry, how would that decision have come down?

So, do presidential elections and Supreme Court appointments really matter? You bet they do.
If you're interested in the entire essay, it's here.

So it is welcome news that Samuel Alito has been nominated. We all know he will be vigorously (and probably indecently) attacked now, but my bet is he'll be confirmed as easily as Roberts was, after perhaps a lot more caterwauling by the left. Once he is confirmed, the way he votes will make a difference in the lives of all of us-- whether we are Boy Scouts leaders and parents, or simply don't want nine lawyers in Washington deciding issues best left to the legislature.


Anonymous Rob said...

sad how some lib spinners and media kept repeating the claim that the boy scouts were a bunch of homophobes that were simply banning all gay scouts, leaders and troop members, which was far from the truth

as i recall the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA at some point had accumulated over 1000 tort cases, past and present all basically derived from molestation damage suits, invariably created when gay scout leaders were placed in proximity of young boys for extended periods of time w/o other adults present - not unlike what happened with the catholic church when the (post-sex revolution) seminaries started recruiting a disproportionate amount of gay men into the priesthood

expect the lib media to once again make that tired and irrelevant claim that "most molestations are done by heterosexual males" Of course, since the hetero population comprises 98% of the male population,(as the Univ of Chicago study confirms), the part the lib media fails to mention. The media not surprisingly prefers Kinsey's fabricated stats

the reality is its very rare for hetero adult males to be attracted to females 12 and under - nor would there be any evolutionary basis for this attraction, except with extreme deviants

now as for hetero adult males and teen girls, society makes the presumption there might be an attraction and for that reason among others doesn't place for example male gym teachers in the locker rooms with 15 y/o females

my wife and I were so disgusted with the United Way's anti-boy scouts position, we re-directed donations to St Judes in Memphis, one fairly sizable (for us at least)


Posted by Rob

Monday, October 31, 2005 9:35:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Grey said...

Great post, Lowell; also your letters to Laura I., and David F. -- though I confess to also calling Miers "Harriet" on occassion; never John for Roberts.

I think it's more a sexist thing, and had JRB gotten the nod (I was hoping; wanting to refight Bork) I'm sure I'd call her Janice, at times.

I really, really like the Boy Scouts, and am so glad they haven't been forced by the SC to let gay Scoutleaders destroy them.

Do you have any confirming info about the molestation tort damages to the Boy Scouts ? In any case, I think "forcing the Boy Scouts to let gays be Scoutleaders" is NOT mainstream. But everybody who complains about Alioto thinks it is. 

Posted by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

the 1000 number was one I did clearly recall hearing at one point several years back, however I cannot recall the precise source. However, I believe it was from a source I would have deemed at the time to be highly reliable, otherwise I would have immediately discounted it

In all probability the following is true:

1 The Boy Scouts of America and affiliated organizations were the targets of a relatively high volume of damage suits, particularly over the past few decades (prior to the rule change) related to the issue of molestations of troop members by scout leaders and related parties having authority over these troop members

2. the volume of these tort suits dropped substantially after certain changes were made to the rules governing qualifications to be a troop leader


Posted by Rob

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home