Granted, the GOP's general platform is pretty insane, but the GOP Oklahoma platform achieves a higher tier of insanity than the usual. Hat tip to ERV for pointing it out at ScienceBlogs. This really does make for an entertaining read (or a terrifying one, depending on how you look at it), so I think it will be the amusement of all if we dissect some of it piece-by-piece. I'm not really going in any particular order here.
Let's begin:
We demand appointment of only those Supreme Court justices who will apply a strict, textual interpretation of the Constitution and who will not look to International Law or other foreign legal concepts to formulate decisions. Judges of the United States or of any State should adjudicate law and not make law.
First of all, "strict, textual interpretation" is pretty much Republican code for "we don't believe in implied powers, despite the fact that they've been invoked by people like Chief Justice John Marshall and are pretty much acknowledged to exist by the majority of contemporary law scholars." If something isn't explicitly stated in Article, Section 8, this means it shouldn't even be under consideration as a federal power. Never mind that things like the commerce clause gives tremendous levels of power to the Federal Government when reasonably interpreted, which Republicans will go to great lengths to deny.
Secondly, wow at the blatant disregard for international law. I mean, we know Republicans hate following the law in general, but they make it pretty much overt here. Considering our Constitution actually does make reference to a "law of nations," their view is even more patently absurd. I mean really, if we completely disregard international law in all adjudications, what is the point of international law?
Finally, advocating that "judge should not make the law" once again alludes to the GOP's hatred for implied powers and their callous understanding of the law in general, but it's also another way of framing such things as gay rights, maintaining the separation of church and state, etc. as "the men in black robes" engaging "in judicial activism." Dahlia Lithwick had a nice piece about why this "activist judges" attack line rings hollow, which uses gay marriage in California as an example:
When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it's particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)
Anyway, let us continue with the platform:
We favor changing the U.N. charter to make it a recommending body only.
More hatred of international law. It climaxes here though, complete with fear mongering:
We oppose any curriculum that promotes one-world government, communism, socialism, global citizenship, and any curriculum originating with UNESCO. We affirm that our citizens, of any race, creed, or culture, are fully American. We support teaching our commonalities as U.S. citizens. We support teaching the intent of our founding fathers, the original founding documents, and the difference between a democracy and a republic.
Unfortunately, given that the Republicans really have no idea what socialism is, I'm afraid that they're actually calling for more censorship beyond what they say they oppose and they just don't know it. But hey, I'm sure this is what the Founders intended.
Moving on to the issue of "the sanctity of life":
The Tulsa County Republican Party seeks to apply these time-honored principles at all levels of government:... The sanctity of human life, from the moment of conception to its natural end;
Granted, we know this is code for "abortion sucks, embryonic stem cell research sucks, and right-to-die sucks," but it actually conflicts with another element of their platform.
We support the death penalty and swift execution of criminals who have exhausted the appeals process.
Oops. Seriously, it's just more accurate to call the GOP the pro-birth party.
Now we move on to the subject of God and religion:
We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Biblical creation should be included in Oklahoma public schools curricula, and if any evolution theory is taught, that both should receive equal funding, class time, and material. Teachers should have the freedom to cover creation science without fear of intimidation, reprimand, or lack of professional respect.
You know, on top of the fact that teaching creationism in a public school science classroom is against the law according to the Supreme Court, "creation science" is an oxymor—
Oh shit, that's right. That ruling was just judges making up the law again!
We believe the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a state-sponsored religion rather than a separation of God from our government. All Americans, whether as private citizens or public officials, should be entitled to acknowledge God.
I've already pointed out why this view of the Establishment Clause is absolute bullshit in another diary. Go read it if you haven't already!
Okay, I'm done parsing through the platform. Trust me, there are plenty of other jewels in there that I will allow you to discover for yourself, as I'm sure it's much more fun that way. I will however call attention to one last thing, which is the Commendations section of the document. The first two commendations are far more vomit-inducing than even elements of the platform, as hard as that is to believe.
"We commend:
- President George W. Bush for his leadership in fighting terrorism and protecting the American people; for articulating his strong commitment to the sanctity of human life; for his uncompromising commitment to tax cuts; for his principled defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, for his Social Security reform initiative, and his strong judicial appointments.
- U. S. Senator Jim Inhofe for his steadfast commitment to military readiness and his support for the cause of freedom around the world and his opposition to the “global warming” scare, and his fiscal conservatism."
These people are a fucking insane.
Edit: delver rootnose turned to a much more lucid section of the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court and international law.
Article III, Section 2:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Edit 2: And Article IV:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
Last time I checked, the U.N. Charter was a big fucking treaty.