It seems strange to some that the Christian Right would make such a big deal about the judiciary. The current court system is more in line with them than every before. The Rehnquist court has tightened restrictions on federal power. Republican appointees outnumber Democrats on the circuit courts of appeals - 94 of 162 active judges. Bush's nominees are vetted by the Federalist Society, not the ABA.

The Economist explains why the Christian Right is so upset:

First, although the Supreme Court has been conservative on the disposition of state and federal power, it has not been so (at least to conservatives) on moral concerns. In 1992 the court reaffirmed both the right to abortion and a ban on prayer in public schools. This year, the court struck down the death penalty for juvenile offenders (adding insult to injury, the majority cited international law to support its opinion). Most important, in 2003 the court struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law on the grounds that people have a constitutional right to consensual private behaviour. The majority went out of its way to deny that this made gay marriage inevitable, but Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, “do not believe it”.

Second, conservatives argue that, though many of their concerns go back years, the courts are now much clearer obstacles than ever. Until the Bush presidency, the main problem was political: Republicans did not control the presidency and Congress. During the Reagan period, when they were ascendant, they hoped to bring the courts round to their way of thinking gently. In their view, this did not happen. Now that they are in the ascendant again, they have to be tougher.

The conservative coalition arraigned against the courts includes the moralists of the Christian Right who want judges to rule a particular way on moral issues (regardless of what the law says), business interests who want to see more limits on regulations, constitutional originalists who insist on a narrow reading of the Constitution, and defenders of property rights who say that laws on matters like minimum wage and environmental rules are unconstitutional.

These four groups overlap. They are united on the type of judge they want: people who view the constitution as a static document. And they form a fearsome combination behind that aim, uniting moral and corporate lobbying power with intellectual conviction.

This coalition might accomplish a great deal; then again, it might not. The greatest political force comes from the moralists in the Christian Right and it's unlikely that most members of the other three groups agree with what the Christian Right wants. They are, however, willing to make a pact with them in order to achieve their own goals — even if that means undercutting everyone else's liberty. Why?

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Religious Right News
• Christian Extremism
• Christian Nationalism