« American Center for Law and Justice
July 21, 2008
Sign Up Now for ACLJ Wireless Service
That's right, you can now get your own ACLJ-branded phone and help out Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice just by switching to their new cell phone plan: "Affinity4 announces the launch of their new ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) Wireless Phone Service, allowing ACLJ members to continue assisting the ACLJ in the efforts to preserve traditional values and protect our religious and constitutional freedoms ... all by simply making a phone call. This new wireless service allows ACLJ members to take a stand with the ACLJ and use their purchasing power to send a strong message to the major phone companies who don't support traditional values. With this service, an ACLJ member can receive important ACLJ updates right from their phone."
Posted by Kyle at 4:21 PM | Permalink
July 17, 2008
How We Help Pat Robertson Express Himself
As Media Matters and Americans United reported, Pat Robertson accused them and People For the American Way of trying to “squelch” his speech. Our method of “stifling” his freedom of expression? We broadcast his own words. From Tuesday’s “700 Club”:
Well our next guest and our next story I know about personally. There’s an organization called People For the American Way. They have camped on this program for decades. They record every single word that I say. If there’s any possibility that they can catch something or change it and then feed it to the AP, they do, and so the next thing you know it’s a big story.
Then, added to them is one of [the] ACLU operatives who started an organization called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They have people assigned to monitor every word, and then to take those words, change them often, take connectives out of them, change the sense of it, and then feed it to a willing agent in the Associated Press. Then, on top of that, there’s another group, which has backing from somebody like George Soros, called, what is it, Media Matters.
So there are three of them trying to stifle the speech on this program and to embarrass those who make it.
Now, monitoring and responding to the Religious Right has been part of People For the American Way’s mission since 1981, so it’s true that we have been watching Robertson and other televangelists as they have sought to expand their political influence. And while it’s been years since Robertson’s 1988 presidential run, when he finished second in the Iowa caucus and birthed the Christian Coalition, he remains the head of an enormous media and religious empire, including the Christian Broadcasting Network, the “700 Club” (which contractually remains on the mainstream ABC Family channel), Regent University (whose low-ranked law school placed a number of graduates in the Bush Justice Department), and the affiliated American Center for Law and Justice (whose head, Jay Sekulow, played a key role in picking Bush’s judicial nominees).
Given Robertson’s continuing political clout, it shouldn’t be surprising that folks pay attention to him and even criticize him. As for “embarrassing” him, well, he does enough of that himself. Like when he and guest Jerry Falwell blamed us for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Get the Flash Player to see this video clip.
In the past, Robertson has complained about being “misquoted”—like when he said Ariel Sharon’s debilitating stroke was divine punishment for “dividing God’s land.” But given that we provided the full transcript and video of his comments, the claim did not hold up to scrutiny.
Even more absurd, however, is Robertson’s complaint that we are trying to censor him. In fact, it is completely the opposite. We bring Robertson’s message—in his own words—to a whole new audience.
Posted by Ezra at 5:00 PM | Permalink
May 5, 2008
Sekulow Recalls John Roberts as Key Anti-Abortion Ally
During the debate over John Roberts’s confirmation as Chief Justice three years ago, many of his proponents claimed that his experience as a right-wing legal advocate for Republican administrations was totally irrelevant in gauging the agenda he would bring to the Supreme Court. That was just a job, Americans were told, and the nominee was presented as an uninterested “umpire” who had practically never taken a position on anything at all.
At the same time, backers of Roberts assured the Religious Right that he would be their champion. For example, Jay Sekulow—head of Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and one of the White House’s key liaisons to the far Right—felt confident enough to assert that “he knew that Judge Roberts's heart was in it. ‘He doesn't argue just to argue.’”
Last month, speaking to an anti-abortion group in Memphis, Sekulow related a few more details about why he’d felt so confident in Roberts:
In the early 1990s, Sekulow was representing the militant anti-abortion activists Operation Rescue in a case before the Supreme Court over physically blocking access to clinics (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic). Meanwhile, Operation Rescue was organizing more blockades in Wichita, Kansas, and planning more large protests.
According to Sekulow, Roberts—then deputy solicitor general—called him up and hatched a strategy: In the upcoming protest in Wichita, don’t block access, and that will give cover for the administration to argue on your behalf in the case where you did block access.
And indeed, the George H.W. Bush Administration joined alongside Operation Rescue in the Bray case, arguing that blocking women’s access to health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women. The Supreme Court agreed, leading Congress to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Reflecting on the upcoming presidential elections, Sekulow reminded the audience of the most important results of the current presidency: “Roberts and Alito. You don’t have to say a whole lot more.”
Posted by Ezra at 5:52 PM | Permalink
February 25, 2008
The Right’s Continuing Outrage Over the “Gang of 14”
It has been nearly three years since fourteen senators - seven Democrats and seven Republicans – hammered out a deal that preserved the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees and, judging by an article in the New York Times, the Right still hasn’t gotten over it:
Back in 2005, Senator John McCain of Arizona and fellow members of the so-called Gang of 14 were hailed as heroes in some quarters when they fashioned an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.
Now Mr. McCain’s central role in that effort, which cleared the way for confirmation of some conservative jurists, is cited as one reason for lingering distrust of him among many conservatives. The power to appoint federal judges is seen as one of the most crucial presidential roles by many on the right, and some continue to believe the agreement undermined the Republican leadership at the precise moment the party was about to eliminate the ability to use procedural tactics to block judges.
James C. Dobson, an influential conservative leader, noted Mr. McCain’s role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 in his announcement that he could not support the lawmaker as the Republican nominee under any circumstances. Other conservatives still resent it as well.
“When people hear he was part of the Gang of 14, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said Phil Burress, president of the Citizens for Community Values, based in Ohio.
Considering that, thanks to the deal, President Bush managed to seat right-wing ideologues such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen on the federal bench – not to mention John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court – a lot of people have been wondering just what the Right is so upset about and why they insist on holding McCain’s participation against him.
In short, they were outraged, and seemingly continue to be outraged, that Senate Republicans failed to take advantage of an opportunity to jettison tradition in order to squash Democrats beneath their feet.
The “nuclear option” -- as the proposed attempt to do away with the filibuster was known despite Republican attempts to rechristen it the “constitutional option” -- was first floated back in 2003 in response to filibusters against Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Immediately, the Right rallied behind the idea, with groups like Committee for Justice, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Center for Reclaiming America, Concerned Women for America, and the American Center for Law and Justice all serving as vocal advocates.
When, two years later, their attempts to destroy the filibuster and squash the Democrats were seemingly thwarted by the "Gang of 14," the Right was apoplectic, as we chronicled in the days that followed the announcement:
When the agreement was announced, [Jan] LaRue belittled the Republicans who had agreed to it as “seven dwarves [who] have handed the filibuster key to the Supreme Court Castle with [sic] the Democrats.”
In keeping with his recent tirades about what the filibuster battle means to the right wing, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson, blasted the arrangement as a "complete betrayal.” "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," he said as he warned that “voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”
Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said the agreement was akin to forfeiting “the World Series … for some dumb reason" and berated the Republicans for failing to “have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority."
…
Rick Scarborough, Chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, likewise voiced his outrage over this “betrayal of democracy, decency and fairness” and called the deal a “complete capitulation.” Scarborough pledged that the JCCCR will “re-double our efforts to eliminate the permanent filibuster – now and in the future.”
In an e-mail update sent to supporters later in the day, Scarborough declared that “I have rarely been more sickened than I am at this moment.” He went on to state that “this devil's bargain must not be allowed to stand and I give you my word we are expressing our outrage” and urged his supports to “let Senators know that you deplore this move and are determined to see the filibuster ended now or latter [sic].”
…
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins likewise blasted the “ignoble judicial compromise” and likened the seven Republican Senators who signed the deal to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister known mainly for appeasing Adolf Hitler. Later in the evening, when Perkins appeared on “Hardball,” he made it clear that he considered Sen. John McCain to have “betrayed the majority leader and I think he betrayed the conservatives that gave the Senate expanded majorities.” He went on to complain that the seven Republicans who had agreed to the deal “stole defeat out of the mouth of victory.”
Pat Buchanan echoed the World War II surrender theme, though it was unclear who among the US Senators Pat Buchanan was comparing to Hitler and/or Mussolini when he characterized the agreement to table the nuclear option as “a Munich; a Munich of the Republican Party” on Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning” show the day after the agreement had been reached.
…
On Dr. James Dobson’s Monday morning radio program, before the agreement was announced, Dobson and his guests made it clear that they would not support any sort of compromise because this was a must-win battle for the Right. Dobson said that the fight over the filibuster was “the most important issue that has come before the Senate since World War II.” He saw it as “a battle royal [about] everything we care about, and I think a collision between right and wrong and good and evil is all wrapped up in the outcome of this particular issue.”
One of Dobson’s guests, American Values’ Gary Bauer, likewise opposed any potential compromise on the issue, warning that “any effort to have a so-called ‘compromise’ would undercut our attempt to get this country’s culture back on the right road.” Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s VP of Government and Public Policy, echoed the “no compromise” theme: [T]here really is no compromise that is acceptable. You either preserve the filibuster for use against good Supreme Court nominees … or you end this unconscionable, unprecedented use of the filibuster that the Democrats have been employing.”
The Right was fully invested in seeing the Senate Republicans’ go through with the “nuclear option,” as evidenced by Paul Weyrich’s exhortation to carry it out:
[Senate Republicans will hear] screams of anguish from the minority, echoed by the national media. But who cares? [They need to] stop the whining about how powerless they are and at last use their power for the good of this country.
For the Right, the “nuclear option” was less about its real long-term impact and more about exploitation of power and sticking it to the Democrats – and they’ve never forgiven McCain and other members of the “Gang of 14” for denying them the thrill of that power play.
Posted by Kyle at 3:55 PM | Permalink
October 9, 2007
"Justice Sunday" Preacher Survives Vote of No Confidence
Jerry Sutton survived a vote at the Two Rivers Baptist Church stemming from allegations that Sutton and others "misapplied, misappropriated, and mishandled the finances," though a lawsuit in which he is being represented by Larry Crain, senior counsel at Pat Robertson's American Center for Law & Justice, is ongoing.
Posted by Kyle at 3:35 PM | Permalink
October 2, 2007
Romney Loads Up on Right-Wingers
Like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney has unveiled his own "Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts" filled with Federalist Society members and right-wing judicial activists such as Jay Sekulow, Wendy Long, Douglas Kmiec, Bradford Berenson, and James Bopp.
Posted by Kyle at 1:22 PM | Permalink
September 5, 2007
The ACLJ's Influence Growing
The Chicago Tribune profiles Jay Sekulow and his work at Pat Robertson's Amercian Center for Law and Justice, highlighting its $35 million budget, staff of 130, and Sekulow's role in picking and supporting President Bush's judicial nominees. More importantly, it reports that the ACLJ is focusing its efforts on winning lower-profile but no less influential cases: "You really don't see the pro-life protests on the courthouse square or in front of the abortion clinic. Now it's more these kinds of cases. Nuanced. There's federal legislation involved in this. There's state legislation. There's state regulatory issues. It's Title VII. So it's much more nuanced."
Posted by Kyle at 2:53 PM | Permalink
July 31, 2007
Maybe the ACLJ Should Ask Ashcroft
Sameh Khouzam, an Egyptian national who has been accused, and convicted in absentia, of murder in his native country has been fighting efforts by the U.S. government to deport him, claiming that he will be tortured if he returns because he is a Coptic Christian who refuses to convert to Islam.
Rallying to Khouzam’s side is Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, as well as its European affiliate, The European Centre for Law and Justice:
As a Coptic Christian, Khouzam effectively has no rights in his native Egypt and quite frankly because of his religious beliefs is certain to be denied the most basic of human rights and protections. The U.S. government repeatedly has stated its opposition to torture and should do what's right -- keep Khouzam out of the hands of a government that is likely to do just that."
…
In its amicus brief, the ACLJ and ECLJ contend that Egypt's assurances that it won't torture Khouzam are simply not credible.
…
The brief also contends that the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) should apply in this case. CAT states that "no State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
The brief asserts that "where the receiving country has a poor human rights track record, like Egypt does, diplomatic assurances should carry almost no weight."
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the ACLJ/ECLJ’s effort to prevent Khouzam from being tortured – in fact, it is quite laudable. What makes the ACLJ/ECLJ involvement in this case interesting is the fact that both organizations have close ties to Former Attorney General John Ashcroft – the very same man responsible for the “extraordinary rendition” of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria, where he was reportedly tortured:
60 Minutes II has learned that the decision to deport Arar was made at the highest levels of the U.S. justice department, with a special removal order signed by John Ashcroft’s former deputy, Larry Thompson.
Ashcroft made his only public statement about the case in November. He said the U.S. deported Arar to protect Americans –- and had every right to do so.
“I consider that really an utter fabrication and a lie,” says Michael Rather, Arar’s attorney and head of the Center For Constitutional Rights. He plans to file a lawsuit against Ashcroft and several other American officials.
“They knew, when they were sending him to Syria, that Syria would use certain kinds of information-gathering techniques, including torture, on him. They knew it,” says Ratner. “That's why he was sent there. That's why he wasn't sent to Canada.”
Before deporting Arar to Syria, American officials involved in the case told 60 Minutes II they had obtained assurances from the Syrian government that Arar would not be tortured –- that he would “be treated humanely”
“The fact that you went looking for assurances, which is reflected here, tells you that even in the minds of people who made this decision,” says Pardy. “I mean, there were some second thoughts.“
Maybe the next time the ACLJ and Ashcroft get together to “teach students from around the world [about] international religious freedom and human dignity,” they can put on the agenda the issue of whether the US should sending people off to foreign countries where they will be tortured. It might make for an interesting discussion.
Posted by Kyle at 3:52 PM | Permalink
July 26, 2007
Robertson's ACLJ Now Positioned to Shape Global Debate
Thanks to its recognition by the the UN: "Last week, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations unanimously granted special consultative status to the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ). This special designation enhances our ability to shape the global debate on religious freedom and human rights and dignity. With the special consultative status, the ECLJ will now be in the unique position to file legal briefs and memorandums with UN governing bodies on a wide range of global issues. This designation is the next logical step in the development of our global outreach; and it will empower the ECLJ in the ongoing struggle to influence the world’s decision-makers to recognize the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected."
Posted by Kyle at 10:17 AM | Permalink
July 24, 2007
ACLJ Taking Over the World
The European Centre for Law and Justice, sister organization to the Pat Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, has been granted special consultative status by U.N. Economic and Social Council: “This special designation enhances our ability to shape the global debate on religious freedom and human rights and dignity. With the special consultative status, the ECLJ will now be in the unique position to file legal briefs and memorandums with UN governing bodies on a wide range of global issues. This designation is the next logical step in the development of our global outreach and will empower the ECLJ in the ongoing struggle to influence the world’s decision-makers to recognize the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected.”
Posted by Kyle at 9:51 AM | Permalink
Older American Center for Law and Justice posts: