Tony Perkins: Impeach Supreme Court Justices Who Rule For Marriage Equality

Update: Perkins later denied making his comments about impeachment on "Face the Nation."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins spoke with Iowa-based radio host Jan Mickelson yesterday about the upcoming marriage case at the Supreme Court, which Perkins predicted will end with the court striking down bans on same-sex marriage across the country. Once this occurs, Perkins warned, “it will be open season on people of faith.”

He predicted that the court will issue a ruling similar to Roe v. Wade, further dividing Americans and contradicting “natural law.”

Mickelson suggested that if this happens, members of Congress should try to “remove” the Supreme Court’s “jurisdiction” over the marriage issue and “nullify” its decision, sending the message to the justices that “if you try it again we will impeach your sorry keisters.” Perkins heartily agreed: “I think you’re absolutely right.”

Mickelson also said that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should recuse themselves from the case since they have both officiated weddings for same-sex couples, claiming that the two are trying to impose their religion of “secular progressivism” on the country.

“Why should a religious minority like Kagan or Ginsburg, I’m not talking about their Jewish background, I’m talking about their secular progressivism, their form of religion, why does their religion get a seat at the table and everybody else’s view gets vilified?” he asked.

Tony Perkins: Evolution Proves Homosexuality Is Wrong

Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins blasted President Obama and Hillary Clinton for “evolving” on the issue of marriage equality, prompting one listener to chime in and tell Perkins that he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution anyway.

Perkins agreed with the caller’s take on evolution, stating that “the evidence is overwhelming” that evolution doesn’t occur. However, since Obama and Clinton believe that “we are constantly in this state of evolution,” Perkins said, then they should oppose gay rights.

“If you logically game this out, the idea that somehow same-sex marriage or same-sex attraction, homosexuality, could be the advancement of evolution,” he said, “well, it would be the end of the road. It is a dead-end street. You’re certainly not going to reproduce.”

Filed Under

How Big Money In Politics Is Making It Harder For Criminal Defendants To Get A Fair Trial

When the Supreme Court struck down limits on outside spending in elections in the 2010 Citizens United case, critics pointed to a potentially huge public policy impact in issues ranging from environmental protection to tax policy to health care to voting rights.

But one impact of Citizens United has gone without as much public discussion as it deserves: It’s making it harder for criminal defendants to get a fair trial.

Last fall, the American Constitution Society released a report by two Emory University law professors illustrating that the big spending that Citizens United let loose in state judicial elections created a climate in which elected judges were more reluctant to side with defendants in criminal cases.

Joanna Shepherd and Michael S. Kang found that outside groups seeking to influence judicial elections — usually for reasons unrelated to criminal justice policy — often relied on “Willie Horton” style attack ads implying that targeted judges were “soft on crime.” The proliferation of outside spending and the attack ads that the spending bought, they found, correlated with a decrease in the frequency with which elected state appellate judges ruled in favor of defendants in criminal cases.

“Unlimited independent spending is associated with, on average, a seven percent decrease in justices’ voting in favor of criminal defendants,” they wrote. “That is, the results predict that, after Citizens United, justices would vote differently and against criminal defendants in 7 out of 100 cases.”

Shepherd discussed her findings yesterday at a panel convened by ACS, along with retired Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Norman Reimer and Tanya Clay House of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Nelson, who was on the Montana Supreme Court when it famously ruled that Citizens United didn't apply to that state's unique history of corruption (Nelson dissented, saying the high court’s ruling applied to Montana, but took the opportunity to demolish the decision while he was at it), said he had lived first-hand the impact of big money in judicial races.

“The fact of the matter is that is when justices running for political office are attacked during their campaigns, it forces them to look over their shoulder constantly,” he said. “And I can tell you that from personal experience. You have to fight to make yourself vote the way the law requires you to vote. And most judges do. But it’s in these marginal cases where there’s a close call and perhaps the case should go to a defendant, it doesn’t go to the defendant.”

The groups spending money on judicial attack ads, he said, “really don’t give a damn about defendants’ rights. They really don’t care. What they want to do is to get somebody onto a court who marches in lockstep with their philosophy, or get somebody off the court that does not march in lockstep with their philosophy.”

Reimer sounded a similar note: “The fight is really about commercial interests. It’s usually about the plaintiffs’ bar versus the corporate interests, the unions, the conservatives. It’s about nothing to do with criminal justice. But because of the fear factor, that’s where you go after somebody.”

“I think we all need to understand and appreciate what’s really at risk here,” Nelson said. “And what’s really at risk is the fair, independent and impartial judicial system that most citizens in this country, and I think most lawyers in this country, simply take for granted. And if the dark money flows from Super PACS and the Koch brothers and RSLC and groups like them get control of the judiciary … That’s what this is all about: getting control of the third branch of government. If they get control of that third branch by spending their way to the top, then we’re going to lose that fair, impartial and independent judiciary that we’ve all come to expect and rely upon. Certainly criminal defendants are going to suffer immeasurably.”

Clay House pointed out that there is already “a different perception of the criminal justice system and judiciary among communities of color.” Pew found in 2013 that 68 percent of black Americans said they were “treated less fairly than whites” in the courts, while the majority of whites were oblivious to racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Unchecked spending in judicial elections, the evidence shows, may be making that perception, and the reality, even worse.

Cross-posted from the blog of People For the American Way.

Filed Under

Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Bill Spearheaded By Radical Activist

Days after attending a reception hosted by two gay hotel magnates, Sen. Ted Cruz has introduced two bills that he hopes would block a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage. One bill would amend the U.S. Constitution to allow states to prohibit same-sex marriage; the other, Bloomberg News reports, “would bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.”

Rep. Steve King introduced a similar measure in the House this week to “strip federal courts of the ability to hear any case involving the issue of marriage equality.”

As Kyle noted yesterday, the proposal put forward by Cruz and King “was the brainchild of Faith 2 Action's Janet Porter,” the anti-gay activist who recently “warned that gay marriage was responsible for Noah's flood” and made a film arguing “that gay activists seek to criminalize Christianity,” among other claims:

  • Claimed that pastors who won’t perform same-sex marriages will be “carried off into jail” in states with marriage equality laws.
  • Blamed gay rights for Noah’s Flood in a column entitled: “How Same-Sex Marriage Points To End Of The World.”
  • Claimed Jason Collins’ decision to come out of the closet will endanger freedom. 
  • Warned that President Obama will use the Swine flu to “round up American citizens” and throw them in “FEMA concentration camps.”
  • Wondered if former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson is the Antichrist.

Filed Under

Santorum: Not Allowing Christians To Discriminate Is 'A Violation Of The Establishment Clause'

Earlier this week, Rick Santorum warned on the Family Research Council's radio program that not allowing Christian business owners to discriminate against gay customers in the name of "religious liberty" was essentially establishing a new secular theocracy in America.

This has obviously become Santorum's new line of attack, because he used it again when he recently sat down for a short interview with Randy Robison, son of Religious Right televangelist James Robison.

Santorum said that the courts and liberal activists have flipped Thomas Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" on its head so that now Christians are being prohibited from exercising their faith in the public square.

"The separation now is people of faith can't tell the government what to do," he said. "In other words, we can't bring our faith claims into the public square to live them out fully. And that is an interesting thing because what people say now is 'anywhere the government is, faith can't be.' Well, where isn't the government?"

"I think you're also starting to see a violation of the Establishment Clause," Santorum continued, "because what we're seeing now is an establishment not of a traditional church that you and I [know], a Bible-based church, but a liberal orthodoxy that says you have to believe these things or else you're going to run afoul of the federal government":

Filed Under

Brian Brown: The Fight Against Marriage Equality Is The Real Civil Rights Movement

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said in a radio interview this week that the fight against marriage equality is the true “civil rights” movement of our time.

Brown, who was promoting this weekend’s March for Marriage on the “Freedom’s Journal” radio program on the American Family Association’s Urban Family Communications network, told host Lonnie Poindexter that like the marches of the civil rights movement, the anti-gay march represents Americans coming together when  “great truths have been undermined or attacked.”

“In my view, when you stand up for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, you are standing up for civil rights,” he said. “You’re standing up for the civil rights of children, you’re standing up for the rights of the oppressed, you’re standing up for the one institution that we know has done the best in combatting poverty, in increasing the opportunity for educational attainment. This is the ideal structure in which to raise children and altering it or trying to even more transform it by moving forward with same-sex marriage will be and has been profoundly damaging.”

“And I’m only now talking about what occurs to children, what happens in our schools,” he continued, “and I’m not even touching on the consequences to the church itself and to individuals through undermining religious liberty, which we’ve seen time and time again when same-sex marriage is imposed on states.”

Comparing the March for Marriage to the marches of the civil rights movement, Brown warned that “the freedom of the church to spread the Gospel” is at stake if marriage equality is legalized nationwide.

“The freedom of the church to speak truth to power, the freedom of the church to spread the Gospel, that itself is at stake because you have a growing number of folks even within Congress who think it’s okay to talk about stripping the church of its 501(c)3 status or saying that somehow the church is discriminating when it says this is the truth about marriage,” he said. “That is not discriminating.”

“You know, folks supporting same-sex marriage are trying to hijack the civil rights movement to use it to support the redefinition of marriage,” he added. “That’s not what the civil rights movement was about. In truth, we’re standing for civil rights when we’re standing for the truth of marriage. We’re standing for the rights of churches to proclaim the Gospel.”

Later in the program, Brown told Poindexter that he feels “blessed to have played some role” in the “rainbow coalition” opposing marriage equality. He added that the “rainbow coalition” will stay together even if the Supreme Court issues a sweeping ruling for marriage rights because such a ruling would merely “be putting a lie into the law.”

“The Supreme Court will be putting a lie into the law if they say that somehow all the states need to redefine marriage,” he said. “Marriage is still the union of a man and a woman, we just have a lie embedded in our law. And it will be up to us to continue to grow, continue to work together, and continue to proclaim truth to power if the courts were to put that sort of lie into law.”

Filed Under

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/23/15

Filed Under

Organizations:

Oath Keepers

Topics:

Round-Up

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 4/23/15

  • David Lane held yet another event designed to mobilize conservative pastors and convince them to push their congregations to vote for Republicans.
  • "This is how religious liberty dies," warns Albert Mohler.
  • Glenn Beck today came out in favor of the legalization of marijuana, though it was pretty obvious that his position was not particularly well thought out or even very firm.
  • Creflo Dollar defends his effort to get his congregation to buy him a private plane: "If I want to believe God for a $65 million plane, you cannot stop me."
  • Finally, the Tea Party members who make up Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's "Grassroots Advisory Board" are blasting Gov. Greg Abbott's Pre-K initiative because it "removes our young people from homes and half-day religious preschools and mothers' day out programs to a Godless environment."

Filed Under

People:

David Lane

Topics:

Leftovers

Larry Pratt: Obama Only Nominates 'Ruthless' People Who Will Steal Elections For Democrats

Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt joined VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program on Tuesday to discuss the then upcoming vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the U.S. attorney general, telling host Jim Schneider that President Obama nominated Lynch — who was confirmed by the Senate this afternoon — because she was “willing to be as ruthless as he.” 

“I’ll give President Obama one thing,” Pratt said. “In all the appointments he’s made that I’m aware of, unlike Republican presidents who have appointed people because they played golf with them, or because somebody said something nice about them among the elite, President Obama has only appointed, to my knowledge, people who are willing to be as ruthless as is he. That explains Eric Holder. That explains Loretta Lynch, who is an Obama appointee as U.S. attorney in New York.”

When Schneider noted with scorn that “Lynch views voter ID laws as being racist,” Pratt said that opposition to such voting restrictions is part of Obama’s “ruthless” attempt to steal elections for Democrats, which will eventually lead to the Republican Party dying out.

“If they have to deal with photo voter ID, they lose, because it makes it much more difficult to steal elections,” he said. “And in all too many cases, the Democrats have been able to win only because of election fraud. And that’s why they are so bitterly resisting photo voter ID. That is a very, very key issue. And when I hear Republicans saying that ‘well, you know, it’s kind of embarrassing for us to be continually opposing that,’ I guess they’re suggesting it makes us look racist, what they’re saying is, they’re okay with the demise of the Republican Party in about 10 years.”

 

Fischer: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will 'Turn The Bible Into Mein Kampf'

Bryan Fischer spent two segments on his radio program today reading from his latest column, in which he warns that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on gay marriage, Christians will be turned into pariahs and find their churches and ministries stripped of their tax exempt status and shut down.

But the first order of business, Fischer warned, would be to "turn the Bible into Mein Kampf" and prohibit it from being studied or read in schools or public places.

"Anyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality will be treated as a racist," Fischer warned. "Anyone, from that day forward, in America who opposes the normalization of homosexuality, who opposes same-sex marriage, will be lumped together by the Supreme Court with the Nazis, with the KKK, with slave holders, and with Aryan supremacists. The Bible will be classified as hate speech from the beginning to the end and it won't be long before efforts are made to ban the Bible in public schools, to ban it in school libraries, to ban in it public libraries and to forbid the study of the Bible or the reading of the Bible on any campus in any public setting":

Fischer's warning makes no sense, of course, considering that the reading, study, and purchase of "Mein Kampf" is currently entirely legal in this country.

Filed Under