American Center for Law and Justice

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:39:33 +0000

Founded by Pat Robertson, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow quickly established themselves as key players in the right-wing movement, litigating a variety of cases at all levels, including the Supreme Court. The ACLJ has been particularly active in fighting marriage equality and defending the Pledge of Allegiance, while Sekulow has maintained very close ties to the Bush White House and played a central role in pushing for the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito.

American Center for Law and Justice
PO Box 64429
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23467
Website: www.aclj.org

Founder: Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing, Regent University
Date established: 1990
Executive Director/Chief Counsel: Jay Sekulow
Publications: Newsletter, education pamphlets, reports, and Foundations of Freedom, a free booklet on the "nation's most important documents."
Annual Budget: $14,650,162 (2004)
Employees: 50
Media: Sekulow has been a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS. He is also frequently quoted in articles published in the mainstream press.
Media: "Jay Sekulow Live!" is a daily weekday radio show that is aired on over 550 radio stations in the U.S., heard by 1.5 million listeners; "ACLJ This Week" broadcasts throughout the week on multiple cable TV channels.

Principal Issues
Activities
About Jay Sekulow
Quotes

Principal Issues

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is a legal advocacy group "dedicated to defending and advancing religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the two-parent, marriage-bound family."
ACLJ is a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage.
ACLJ has been involved with more than 30 cases before the United States Supreme Court and has been successful in many of its lawsuits.
ACLJ is a strong supporter of school vouchers and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the 2002 Cleveland voucher case before the Supreme Court.
The ACLJ supports the funding of faith-based social services, religious proclamations in the public domain, and often equates religious expression with patriotism.
ACLJ strongly opposes the right to legal, safe abortion and provides legal help to pro-life protesters who harass women seeking reproductive services.
The ACLJ challenges domestic partnership benefits for city and state employees, anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation, and generally fights against the right of gays and lesbians to be parents.
The ACLJ's legal services are free.

Activities

In 2004-2005, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) played a key role in the effort to eliminate the minority party's ability to make use of a senatorial filibuster for judicial nominees.
ACLJ gives free legal advice and counsel and maintains a national Christian Affiliate Attorney list for referrals.
Two of the Supreme Court cases argued by Sekulow have become benchmark cases in the area of religious liberty litigation. In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (496 US 226), Sekulow argued the right of public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, Sekulow defended the rights of religious groups to use public school property for religious meetings after hours.
A few other examples of ACLJ cases:
- ACLJ defended a group of parents who drove a transsexual teacher out of her job in Minnesota,
- Supported a Kmart pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills, and
- Pursued litigation over various claims that children are being told that they cannot pray on school grounds or talk about their religion.
About Jay Sekulow
- Jay Sekulow helped draft the Defense of the Marriage Act (DOMA), which passed both houses and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA allows states to reject the legitimacy of same-sex marriage licenses awarded in other states, although, to this day no state offers marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Sekulow helped draft DOMA: "[and] at the request of several pro-family legislators, [I] gave expert testimony to both houses of Congress on this bill." (Jay Sekulow, 1997)
- The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in the United States. (1994, 1997); he is a leading conservative lawyer, and has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court.
- In 2005, Sekulow was named one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in America by TIME Magazine.
- Sekulow has also worked closely with the White House in promoting and defending the Bush administration's Supreme Court nominees.
Quotes

"This great American institution [Boy Scouts of America] has come under attack from homosexual activists—who may well set their sights on your church next."
– Jay Sekulow, direct mail, March 2000

"Can you imagine, that in public schools of America today, students are being taught that homosexual conduct, which in many states is still deemed illegal, is not only a viable alternative lifestyle, but is actually equal to heterosexual relationships?"
– Jay Sekulow, January 2, 1997, Danbury News-Times

Updated: August 2006

Jordan Sekulow Outraged That Administration Meets With Atheists Because "99.9% of Americans" Believe In God

Kyle — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:09:38 +0000

Last week we noted that some Religious Right groups were up in arms over news that representatives from the Secular Coalition for America were meeting with officials from the Obama administration.

Today, the Christian Broadcasting Network brought on Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice to discuss the meeting, who claimed that the group is "not just an anti-Christian, they are an anti-religious organization" that looks down upon and attacks anyone who has a deep personal faith.

Sekulow also warned CBN's viewers not to underestimate the Secular Coalition for America, saying people are some times tempted to down play their influence since "99.9% of the American people, and that's about accurate, acknowledge that there is some higher power ... [very few] consider themselves 'atheists,' that's a very small percent of the American people."

I don't know where Sekulow is getting his data, because the most recent American Religious Identification Survey reports that "1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic" and further reports [PDF] that:

Based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification in 2008 ... roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God).

So almost 2% of the population self-identifies as atheist or agnostic and 12% are classified as atheist or agnostic based upon their stated beliefs ... that seems to be significantly more than the .1% that Sekulow claims the Secular Coalition of America represents.

Is This How Elections Work?

Kyle — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:07:27 +0000

I'll admit that the inner workings of Congress can be rather confusing, but I didn't realize that every piece of legislation that had been passed by the Senate had to be revisited so that a newly elected member could vote on it, which is pretty much what the American Center for Law and Justice is demanding in this email they just sent out:

With Sen. Brown's victory, it's reported that the Senate may not vote on the health care bill, and instead have the House approve the measure - leaving incoming Sen. Brown without an opportunity to vote on health care reform.

But any attempt to shut out Sen. Brown from the legislative process circumvents this election and clearly denies the will of the people.

It's time to put a stop to the flawed government-run, pro-abortion health care program that's been on a fast-track since Day One. Congress must respect the outcome of this pivotal election and let incoming Sen. Brown vote on health care ... NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Really? Is that how things work? Newly elected candidate must be given an opportunity to vote on things that happened before that person was even elected or else it "denies the will of the people"?

If that is the case, can we go back and vote on the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito now that Democrats have a sizable majority in the Senate?

And, for what it is worth, the ACLJ is also warning that it has a "team of lawyers" ready to pounce should their be any delay in seating Brown:

We’ve assembled a team of lawyers to determine what legal action could be taken should Democrats refuse to recognize or delay the outcome of this election. We have produced a legal memorandum that focuses on election law in Massachusetts for the special Senate election.

Elections have consequences and the Democrats must understand that the consequences of a Sen. Brown victory mean it’s time to put a stop to the flawed government-run, pro-abortion health care program that’s been on a fast-track.

Robertson's ACLJ Files Anti-DC Marriage Brief On Behalf of 39 GOP Members of Congress

Kyle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:02:09 +0000

Today, the American Center for Law and Justice announced that it had filed a brief on behalf of 39 Republican members of Congress against marriage equality in Washington DC, arguing that the "Board of Elections and Ethics wrongfully denied [the] proposed initiative and its decision should be reversed":

We have just filed an important amicus brief in defense of marriage. This time the venue is the District of Columbia, where the city council has authorized same-sex marriages. In our brief, we're representing members of Congress in a very significant legal challenge.

A group of citizens has applied for the right for D.C. residents to vote on an initiative to halt same-sex marriages in D.C. However, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has wrongly rejected that application.

The D.C. residents have filed suit to challenge the Board’s ruling, and the ACLJ – with the support of 39 members of Congress – has filed an amicus brief with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in support of the citizens asking the court to reverse the decision of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.

The brief [PDF] lists the following Republican members of Congress as having signed on:

Amici United States Senators James Inhofe and Roger Wicker and Representatives Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Michele Bachmann, Gresham Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Marsha Blackburn, John Boehner, John Boozman, Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, John Fleming, Randy Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Steve King, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Doug Lamborn, Robert Latta, Don Manzullo, Michael McCaul, Thaddeus McCotter, Patrick McHenry, Cathy McMorris Rogers, Jeff Miller, Jerry Moran, Randy Neugebauer, Mike Pence, Joe Pitts, Mark Souder, and Todd Tiahrt are currently serving in the One Hundred and Eleventh Congress. Under the United States Constitution, they serve as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule. As members of the District’s ultimate legislative body, amici are concerned about the extent of the District’s delegated legislative authority, the preservation of Congress’s constitutional authority, and the interpretation of home rule. Amici also support the right of the District electors to directly participate in the legislative process pursuant to the initiative and referendum rights, under the Initiative Referendum and Recall Charter Amendments Act of 1977. It is precisely these concerns which lead amici to support Petitioners in seeking a reversal of the denial of the proposed initiative.

The ACLJ's Growing Worldwide Reach

Kyle — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:14:09 +0000

Back in 1990, Pat Robertson created the American Center for Law and Justice as a right-wing alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union here in the United States. But over the last two decades, and especially in recent years, the organization has begun focusing on work overseas and opening offices in different countries, creating that European Center for Law and Justice, based in Strasbourg, France, and the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, based in Moscow, Russia.

And now it looks like they are branching out into Africa as well, where the organization intends to play a role in helping draft constitutions in both Zimbabwe and Kenya:

The ACLJ does not take international expansion lightly. In fact, we do not expand unless we are called to. Each of our international offices - France, Russia, Israel, and Pakistan - was formed because the ACLJ was asked to come and help form organizations modeled on the ACLJ-USA. While each country expansion is unique, I wanted to tell you about why we're expanding into Africa, specifically Kenya and Zimbabwe.

Earlier this year, we were asked to accompany a women's ministry to Zimbabwe because the leaders of the ministry felt that our sophisticated legal assistance was needed. If you don't know much about Zimbabwe, know it is sanctioned by the United States, battling AIDS, and in the midst of an economic crisis. When we arrived in Zimbabwe in March, we were greeted warmly by citizens and government leaders. Now, just months after our first trip, we're opening a full-time office in the country's capital.

While our work in Zimbabwe focuses primarily on the country's constitution drafting process, we'll also be providing legal training and legal research facilities to attorneys throughout the country. Of course, one can never forget the hardships faced by the good people of Zimbabwe. We have taken proactive steps to assist orphanages and single mother's centers. In Zimbabwe, our mission is threefold: (1) help train attorneys while working on the draft constitution, (2) promote economic empowerment, and (3) provide humanitarian assistance when we are able. Part of the African Center for Law & Justice's launch in Harare is a neighborhood cleanup project in partnership with the City of Harare.

Our work in Kenya began a very different way. A good friend and pastor from a church in Iowa, who I met during the Iowa caucuses, introduced me to a well-known Bishop from Kenya who was interested in opening an operation similar to ACLJ-USA. Kenya, like Zimbabwe, is also going through a constitution drafting process and this Bishop wanted to make sure that he and the thousands of pastors that are part of his denomination knew how to properly comment on the draft constitution when speaking to their parishioners and the media. Because of Kenya's sizable Muslim population, estimated at about 10 million (roughly 1/4 of Kenya's population), this predominately Christian country is prepared to constitutionalize Kadhis' Courts (Kadhi is Arabic for judge) to handle matters such as family law, inheritance, marriage, and divorce. These would be official, binding courts in Kenya's judiciary.

The Bishop and his fellow pastors have decided to speak out against the constitutionalization of the Sharia Courts and have called on the ACLJ to travel to Kenya to setup a full-time legal and government affairs operation in Nairobi where we'll work with church leaders on this crucial issue.

Nelson Amendment Voted Down: The Right Responds

Kyle — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:37:40 +0000

Yesterday, the Senate rejected the restrictive anti-choice amendment Sen. Ben Nelson sought to add to health care reform legislation.

Not surprisingly, the Religious Right is not pleased.

Concerned Women for America:

"Nelson-Hatch was a reasonable amendment that does one thing: ensures federal funds are not spent on elective abortions. What the government funds, we get more of. Without this amendment, the health care bill will violate two of Pres. Obama's promises: that the bill will not fund abortion and that he will work to reduce abortions.

"Since abortion costs less than delivery of a baby, it is not unlikely that bureaucrats, facing pressure to reduce costs, will sign off on paying for abortion but not for the health care that pregnant women and their babies need. This could lead to women being coerced into abortion by their own government.

"The Senate bill is now at odds with the House version, which prohibits funding of elective abortions.

"Federal funding of abortion will increase the number of abortions and lead to higher health care costs for women who suffer complications, such as hemorrhaging, infection, subsequent premature births, and psychological issues.

"If more children are aborted, who will pay for this massive government entitlement when it balloons in 20 years?"

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Tonight Senator Reid invoked Henry Clay, posing as a great compromiser even as he denied the consciences of the majority of Americans. Yet Clay himself would have never blanched at Nelson's amendment, a commonsense proposal backed by 61% of America. You can't find greater common ground than the decision to restrict government funding for abortion on-demand. With his actions tonight, Harry Reid has effectively tabled the common ground.

"Senator Reid's tabling of the pro-life Nelson Amendment is just the latest reason why incumbents like Harry Reid are becoming top political targets: the disconnect between their words and actions inspire a rising populist opposition. Senator Reid calls himself pro-life, yet he continues to advance the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade at taxpayers' expense.

"As it stands today, there should be no question about opposing the Senate health care bill. If you call yourself pro-life and genuinely care about preserving true common ground, you cannot possibly vote for this bill. Pro-Life senators - the sponsors of Nelson's amendment included - must oppose this legislation.

"As the debate continues, on behalf of the 280,000 pro-life Susan B. Anthony List members and activists nationwide, I call on Senator Casey to follow the unyielding leadership of his father, former Governor Bob Casey. Senator Casey and his Democratic colleagues now have the opportunity to honor the consistent pro-life ethic of his father."

Focus on the Family:

“Today, the U.S. Senate failed to protect the preborn and ignored the will of the people they represent.

“Although 67 percent of Americans oppose the use of federal money to pay for abortion in any government-run healthcare, Senators nevertheless rejected the Hatch-Nelson amendment. Their vote would compel Americans who have moral and religious objects to abortion – and who now make up the majority of the country – to fund it. This is what Thomas Jefferson described as ‘tyrannical.’

“Focus on the Family continues to oppose the health care bill because it fails to protect the most vulnerable among us – the preborn. We will keep working diligently to ensure that this faulty legislation does not pass by giving a voice to the millions of Americans who oppose the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.”

Priests for Life:

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, commented on the Senate's vote on the Nelson Amendment to the health care bill. "Those in the Senate who rejected this Amendment have voted to let their attachment to the abortion industry interfere with health care reform in this country. These Senators could have listened to their constituents and opposed abortion funding. Instead, they are allowing this effort at reform to be hijacked by abortion extremists."

American Center for Law and Justice:

“The vote reflects a callous disregard for the protection of innocent human life,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It is clear most Americans do not want abortion classified as a mandatory health care benefit. The House understood this in passing the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Sadly, the Senate chose to ignore the concerns of the American people and refused to approve an Amendment that would have put into place much-needed pro-life protections in the Senate's version of health care reform. Rejecting this Amendment is disappointing, but not surprising.”

“With this vote, we now call on pro-life Democrats - including Sen. Nelson, co-sponsor of the Amendment, to follow through with the promise to reject the Senate's health care measure because it fails to exclude abortion funding,” added Sekulow.

“The battle over health care reform is far from over. We will continue to oppose the Senate's health care bill and continue to work to ensure that a final version of health care to be considered at some point by Congress includes the pro-life protections so many Americans demand.”

ACLJ and Its "Special Ops Team" Will Save Our Freedom

Kyle — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:16:46 +0000

Does this fundraising email from the American Center for Law and Justice seem just a bit over-the-top to anyone else?

What future does liberty have in America?

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Ayers, we're working in the heart of Washington, D.C., to answer this very real threat to freedom, to help preserve our nation's valuable Judeo-Christian heritage.

Stand up and speak out alongside the ACLJ.

I urge you to give an online gift now - it will be matched up to $875,000 through our Justice, Life & Freedom Matching Challenge for DOUBLE the impact!

Will America be a sovereign nation, ruled by OUR constitutional law and OUR courts? Or controlled by an international court - subject to the whims of hostile, anti-Christian, anti-American forces?

The ACLJ - along with the ECLJ, our Special Ops team in Jerusalem, and our newly established New York team - is firmly positioned to stand in the way of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and stand for the sovereignty of the U.S. and Israel.

We face many urgent issues at this moment ...

The ''Cyber Security Act'' in Congress - outrageous legislation that would grant the federal government virtually complete control over all electronic communication.

We are supporting Senator Graham's (R-SC) legislation to keep terrorists out of civilian courts and within the constraints of the military justice system - for the sake of our national security.

And much, MUCH more.

Please give generously today. Don't let the Matching Challenge opportunity pass you by. DOUBLE your impact for the sake of justice, life, and freedom in America!

Thank you!

The Freedom From Religion Foundation case is about engraving of "In God We Trust" and the religious Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center. Does that honestly constitute a "very real threat to freedom"?

And what on earth is the ALCJ's "Special Ops team in Jerusalem" and how exactly do they plan to "stand in the way" of the ICC? Is the ECLJ made up of mercenaries?

The Anti-Choice Movement As Seen From The Inside

Kyle — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:37:53 +0000

I never would have imagined that the ultra-radicalism and violence of the anti-choice movement in the 1980s and 1990's was something of which right-wing anti-choice groups would be particularly proud, but apparently it is, as next month the American Center for Law and Justice is going to be releasing a documentary all about it entitled "Choosing Life: The History of the Pro-Life Movement" featuring recollections from the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow, Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action, and Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, and clips of them all back in their days in Operation Rescue with Randall Terry, including the episode where Schenck and others were arrested for thrusting a fetus at Bill Clinton.

It is one of the most powerful and influential movements in America. Intensified by the Supreme Courts landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion, the battle to protect the life of the unborn has spanned decades, yet still remains one of the most critical and provocative issues of our day.

Now, experience the history of the pro-life movement like youve never seen before. Years of struggle the victories and setbacks as chronicled by pro-life leaders who waged the legal, legislative, and public relations battles to protect the sanctity of human life. This compelling story of the pro-life movement includes never before seen video of protests and demonstrations from the archives of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Featuring interviews with pro-life leaders including ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, and Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action.

Choosing Life provides a unique behind-the-scenes look at history in the making a movement that transformed the nation. After watching Choosing Life we know you'll agree that protecting the life of the unborn is more important now than ever before.

Religious Right Claims Victory With Stupak Amendment

Kyle — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:41:05 +0000

To say that the Religious Right is overjoyed by the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which makes it "virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women," would be a massive understatement.

The Right hasn't had much to cheer about lately, but a quick look at the statements released shows that while they are still militantly opposed to healthcare reform, anti-choice activists are downright giddy with this victory, with the Christian Defense Coalition proclaiming that it "pounds a nail in the eventual coffin of 'Roe v. Wade'":

"This historic vote in the United States House of Representatives signals the beginning of the end for 'Roe v. Wade.' President Obama made taxpayer funded abortions a key part of his presidential campaign and it was strongly supported by Speaker Pelosi and House leadership.

"Pro-choice groups spent millions of dollars to have taxpayer funded abortions included in healthcare legislation to no avail.

"It is important to note that taxpayer funded abortions were excluded from the healthcare bill because of the votes of Democrats in the House, not conservative Republicans. This vote shows what recent national polls have demonstrated, and that is -- America is turning away from abortion and embracing human rights and a culture of life.

Randall Terry:

Mr. Terry states: "This is a great first step to victory - a touchdown in the first quarter - but we have a lot of fighting ahead of us. Our rejoicing must be tempered by reality. The Senate Bill must also prohibit any money from going to child-killing; and then we must insure that the conference committee does not include child-killing in the final bill, should it pass both houses. We have many hurdles left.

"Those of us who despise Socialism must now broaden our battle to kill the bill entirely. Our biggest battle is to stop the slaughter of children. The next battle is to keep our children from being saddled with trillions of dollars of debt.

"Many of us would rather die half-starved free men than be well fed slaves on Uncle Sam's plantation."

Susan B. Anthony List:

“Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation’s longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers’ conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.

“On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens’ conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.

“If there’s one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday’s elections, it’s the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator’s record."

Family Research Council:

"This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

"Since prior to last year's election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

Operation Rescue:

"Today, the voices of 71% of the American people who oppose taxpayer funded abortions were heard loud and clear. We thank each one who took the time to raise their voices in opposition to the Obama-Pelosi-Carhart effort to force taxpayers to fund the shedding of innocent blood through abortion.

"There is still a long way to go to prevent government subsidized health care from paying for abortions. Now the ball is in the Senate's court, and we pray that the common sense displayed in the House on the matter of abortion funding will also prevail in the Senate.

"We will continue to stand on behalf of the voiceless and oppose any efforts to restore abortion funding in any future version of health care legislation. But for tonight, we celebrate this day's pro-life victory defunding abortion, which will save lives and prevent the immoral and fiscally irresponsible bailout of the abortion cartel."

Concerned Women for America:

"Democrats and Republicans came together to ensure federal funds would not pay for elective abortions. They corrected a terrible provision in the bill that would force Americans to subsidize abortion, an act that kills unborn children and harms women. Pro-life congressmen - Democrat and Republican - worked tirelessly to strip an incentive from the bill that would increase abortions by paying for them with government money," stated Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.

National Right to Life Committee:

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "The Obama White House and top congressional Democratic leaders spent months concealing and misrepresenting provisions that would directly fund abortions through a government plan, and subsidize premiums for private abortion plans. Today's bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation. But we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion, and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Americans United for Life:

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, "The passage of this amendment is a victory for the pro-life Americans across this country who have flooded Congress this week with the message that abortion does not belong in health care. The bipartisan effort that led to its passage, under the leadership of Congressmen Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts, is a step toward a future where both political parties defend Life."

American Center for Law and Justice:

The passage of this pro-life Amendment represents the only bright spot in an otherwise troubling government-run health care package put forth by House Speaker Pelosi. The American people understand that health care should not include federal funding for abortion and we’re grateful to Democrat Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mich) and Joseph Pitts (R-Penn) for their unrelenting efforts in protecting the unborn.

The 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats who stood together in a bipartisan defense of life deserve our sincere gratitude. For many of these Members, this vote was cast in the face of serious pressure to oppose the amendment. While there is work yet to do on this issue, this vote represents an extremely significant victory for life.

Oklahoma Prison to Be Run By Christians, For Christians

Kyle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:13:04 +0000

Reading through this article about a proposed Christian prison in Oklahoma, I kept thinking to myself that there has got to be some Religious Right involvement in this ... and lo and behold there is, as Pat Robertson's ACLJ has already agreed to defend it against any constitutional challenges:

A 150-acre site on the edge Wakita has been selected, and an agreement has been reached with Corrections Concepts Inc. to manage the 600-bed prison if and when it is built ... [Bill] Robinson said the $42 million project would be financed with bonds.

A bond underwriting company said that if a government jurisdiction will commit to sending 310 inmates at a cost of $42.80 a day, bond sales can begin, and the project can proceed.

...

Robinson, himself an ex-con and prison minister, said he had been working for years on the idea of an all-Christian prison, and he had invested $1.3 million so far on construction plans and other expenses.

He said a lot of prisons have faith-based or Christian units, but he knows of none with an all-Christian staff.

"The staff, being all born-again believers, will see this as a mission," he said.

"I want people to understand what it's about. It's about changing criminals into citizens."

The prison would accept only men near the end of their sentences who volunteer to come into the prison and sign an agreement to participate.

They would work full time at private industries that operate inside the prison, get job training, and earn money.

The money would go to support their families, pay restitution to their victims, contribute to their own room and board, and produce a nest egg they can take when they leave prison.

Classes in literacy, General Educational Development requirements and life skills would be offered, and Wayland University, a Christian college in Plainview, Texas, has agreed to put a satellite campus in the prison.

"They don't have to go to church, or Bible study, but they have to participate in the curriculum, which is Christ-centered," Robinson said.

He possesses legal opinions that say that as a religious organization, the prison will be able to hire only people of like faith, he said.

If constitutional challenges arise, he said, the American Center for Law and Justice, a major Christian law firm, has agreed to represent the ministry for free.

It Is Obama Who Needs To Apologize, Not Wilson

Kyle — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:39:42 +0000

That is what Jordan Sekulow, Director of International Operations at the American Center for Law and Justice, says:

I understand why Congressman Wilson shouted at President Obama and if I had the guts he did, I'd hope I would have done the same thing. Was it a distraction that hurt the fight against government run health care? We'll see. Was it the "right" thing to do? Probably not. But, do I like the fact that he stood up to the President just like thousands of Americans who stood up to their representatives during the August recess? You bet I did. Why? I was enraged when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called President Bush a "loser" and when Democrats booed President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address. President Obama is getting a taste of the tactics used by the DNC, Organizing for America, and ACORN. The gloves have come off and the fight is real. Conservatives can beat this regime at its own game and the President is sweating.

President Obama, you should apologize to the American people for the lies and deceptions you and your party continue to preach.

Trying to Set the Record Straight About Efforts to Try and Set the Record Straight

Kyle — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:08:44 +0000

Earlier this week, in an attempt to rebut all the lies and misinformation being spread about health care reform, the White House asked people to send them examples of the sorts of things they are seeing so that the administration could help set the record straight:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Now, that seems pretty simple and self-explanatory, but as Steve Benen noted, nothing is simple when dealing with the Right because it is impossible "to anticipate just how paranoid some people will choose to be":

This hardly seemed controversial. There's an aggressive campaign underway to mislead Americans, and the White House wants to help set the record straight. If some especially pernicious lies are making the rounds, folks can let the White House know directly, so officials can get the truth out.

Except, that's not how the right sees it. RedState interpreted this to mean "the White House wants you to report ... anybody publicly opposing" health care reform. Soon after, Rush Limbaugh had embraced the same line, and Malkin wasn't far behind. Naturally, Drudge joined the fun.

By late yesterday, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asserting that the White House wants Americans to report on each other. Today, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) appears to have completely lost his mind.

Cornyn says this practice would let the White House collect personal information about people who oppose the President.

"By requesting citizens send 'fishy' emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email, addresses, IP addresses and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House," Cornyn wrote in a letter to Obama. "You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program."

Cornyn asked Obama to cease the program immediately, or at the very least explain what the White House would do with the information it collects.

This is what politics in America in the 21st century has come to

Today, Tony Perkins released a video statement about this White House effort, suggesting that it was part of a plot "to intimidate and if possible silence their opponents":

The White House apparently subscribes to Vince Lombardi’s idea that the best defense is a good offense. The widespread opposition to the Presidents proposed takeover of health care has apparently blind sided the administration and is causing panic over the prospects the whole plan could be sacked by the American public.

As a result the White House is striking back. Macon Phillips on the White House blog wrote, “Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet.” he goes on to say that “since we cant keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help.” Phillips goes on to ask individuals to send the White House any email or health care message on the web that seems fishy.

Fishy? If there is anything fishy it is the White House wanting people to help them keep track of those who oppose the government takeover of health care. Is the White House is simply wanting to keep a scrapbook of the emails that primarily quote the President and the legislation that he is pushing, or is it possible they are simply looking to use this information to intimidate and if possible silence their opponents?

In essence, a White House effort to try and clarify right-wing misinformation and lies about health care reform has now itself become the subject of a right-wing misinformation campaign.

UPDATE: The ACLJ has now issued its own statement demanding that President Obama repudiate this "attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans" and "intimidate" conservatives:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, today called on President Obama to repudiate comments made by his Director of New Media – comments that call on Americans to report those who make “fishy” statements about health care. The ACLJ asserts that the official White House release is an attack on free speech and designed to stifle public debate about the health care issue – including growing concerns from Americans opposed to making abortion services mandatory health benefits.

“This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan. And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed ‘speech police’ – urging Americans to monitor and report those who engage in ‘fishy’ speech. What will the Obama Administration do with those names? Who will be ‘flagged’ next? President Obama must reject this assault on free speech. It’s not only wrong, it directly contradicts his repeated promise to conduct a more open and transparent government.”

...

“In a nutshell, the White House is asking Americans to report on their neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President’s policy choices on health care,” said Sekulow. “The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all – let’s ‘flag’ those who disagree with us. This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care.”

George Tiller and the DHS Report

Kyle — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:52:24 +0000

It was just a few weeks ago that the Religious Right was up-in-arms over the report released by the Department of Homeland Security called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [PDF] because it contained this footnote:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Because of this passage, Religious Right leaders immediately began decrying the report as not only "offensive to millions of Americans who hold constitutionally-protected views opposing abortion" but also an outright attack on Jesus Christ:

[Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America] tells OneNewsNow the report is a direct attack on the church. "[It's] a direct assault on the basic principles of religious beliefs that have been here since the time of Christ," she argues. "These are the things that Christ died on the cross for."

Within days, groups like the American Center for Law and Justice and the Family Research Council were using the report in their fund-raising efforts:

Today, federal employees whose salaries we pay are issuing reports from the Department of Homeland Security that say some conservatives are a grave threat to America. Why? Because we oppose abortion and the massive growth of the federal government. Do they no longer see Al Qaeda or the Taliban as the greatest threat to Americans' liberty? Apparently they are now targeting us. I remind DHS and all who read this that we oppose all violence or lawbreaking. But speaking out is an American right we will not give up!

...

Will you help Family Research Council (FRC) fight excessive government and defend your rights with a donation today?

Soon calls began to emerge for an investigation into the drafting of the report, and that was quickly followed by the launching of an ad campaign supported by various right-wing groups demanding DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's resignation:

Among the groups sponsoring the ad were Operation Rescue, the American Family Association, Faith2Action, Vision America, Americans for Truth, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, and others.

All of the caterwalling eventually lead DHS to pull the report ... but in light of the details emerging about Scott Roeder, the man arrested in the killing of physician George Tiller, it seems as if the report - far from being an offensive attack on Christians and anti-choice activists - was remarkably timely and accurate.

The real irony here is that the report itself focused almost entirely on violent anti-government extremists and militia groups, never mentioning anti-choice activists outside of this one isolated footnote.

But it was that footnote that the Right seized upon, repeatedly and intentionally misrepresenting what is said in order to generate controversy over the report, culminating in this sort of fear mongering from the ACLJ ... which is now blowing up in their face:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has labeled you, a member of the pro-life community, THE MOST DANGEROUS DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

SCOTUS Round-Up

Kyle — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:20:20 +0000

Sen. Orrin Hatch says he spoke with President Obama, who "assured me that he would not be picking a radical or an extremist for the court that he was very pragmatic in his approach and that he would pick somebody who would abide by the rule of law.” Hatch also speculates that the White House could announce its nominee as soon as this week.

Following Arlen Specter's defection, Sen. Jeff Session has been chosen to take over his position as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committe in a move that is being welcomed by right-wing groups:

“He is someone who has a tremendous amount of experience with legal policy issues that the committee has to involve itself in,” said Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers ... Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, expects changes under Sessions.

“I assume he will bring in some conservative staff,” said Sekulow. He called Sessions’ elevation on the committee “good for Republicans.”

Phyllis Schlafly has now gotten around to weighing in with her latest column, accusing Souter of flipping "from presumed conservative to liberal as soon as the media began ridiculing him" and attacking President Obama and several of his nominees, including David Hamilton:

We would also like to know if Obama's Supreme Court nominee is cut from the same cloth as his first judicial nomination, David F. Hamilton. He's a former fundraiser for ACORN and a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU.

Ed Whelan starts the opposition research, announcing "one [possible nominee] whose candidacy I take seriously and whom I have previously written very little about is Seventh Circuit judge Diane P. Wood. I will address her record in this and subsequent posts" and concludes that "her course of conduct signals the dangers of judicial lawlessness that inhere in Obama’s badly misguided standard for judging."

Right Wing Reaction to Souter's Retirement

Kyle — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:01:51 +0000

Here's a quick collection of early right-wing reactions to the news that Justice David Souter will be retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of this term - it will continue to be updated as new statements are released:

Wendy Long (Judicial Confirmation Network):

1. The current Supreme Court is a liberal, judicial activist court. Obama could make it even more of a far-left judicial activist court, for a long time to come, if he appoints radicals like Diane Wood, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. A new Justice in this mold would just entrench a bad majority for a long time.

2. If Obama holds to his campaign promise to appoint a Justice who rules based on her own "deepest values" and what's in her own "heart" — instead of what is in the Constitution and laws — he will be the first American President who has made lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court Justices.

3. The President and Senators need to be careful about, respectively, nominating and appointing a hard-left judicial activist. Americans who elected Obama may have done so out of fear for the economy or other reasons, but they did not elect him because they share his views on judges. By a margin of more and 3 to 1, Americans want Supreme Court Justices who will practice judicial restraint and follow the law, not jurists who will indulge their own personal views and experiences in deciding cases.

4. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has pointed out, a judge who decides cases based on her personal and political views, instead of what the law says, will have a hard time fulfilling her oath to dispense justice impartially. Senators have a constitutional duty to rigorously scrutinize the nominee on this score, and vote "no" if the nominee cannot establish that she will follow the law, rather than her own values and beliefs, as the President has suggested.

Ed Whelan:

Souter has been a terrible justice, but you can expect Obama’s nominee to be even worse. The Left is clamoring for “liberal lions” who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag. Consider some of their leading contenders, like Harold Koh (champion of judicial transnationalism and transgenderism), Massaschusetts governor Deval Patrick (a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist), and Cass Sunstein (advocate of judicial invention of a “second Bill of Rights” on welfare, employment, and other Nanny State mandates). Or Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor, whose shenanigans in trying to bury the firefighters’ claims in Ricci v. DeStefano triggered an extraordinary dissent by fellow Clinton appointee José Cabranes (and the Supreme Court’s pending review of the ruling). Or Elena Kagan, who led the law schools’ opposition to military recruitment on their campuses, who used remarkably extreme rhetoric—“a profound wrong” and “a moral injustice of the first order”—to condemn the federal law on gays in the military that was approved in 1993 by a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, and who received 31 votes against her confirmation as Solicitor General. Or Seventh Circuit judge Diane Wood, a fervent activist whose extreme opinions in an abortion case managed to elicit successive 8-1 and 9-0 slapdowns by the Supreme Court.

...

American citizens have various policy positions on all these issues, but everyone ought to agree that they are to be addressed and decided through the processes of representative government, not by judicial usurpation. And President Obama, who often talks a moderate game, should be made to pay a high price for appointing a liberal judicial activist who will do his dirty work for him.

The American Center for Law and Justice:

“The reported retirement of Justice Souter marks the beginning of President Obama’s legal legacy – a legacy that will move this country dramatically to the left,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “With reports that Justice Souter will step down at the end of the term, President Obama now has a green light to begin reshaping the federal judiciary. Based on the appointments at the Department of Justice, it’s clear that President Obama will name a Supreme Court nominee who will embrace an extremely liberal judicial philosophy. There’s no illusion here – President Obama is poised to reshape the nation’s highest court. Once a nominee is named and the confirmation process begins, it’s important that the nominee faces full and detailed hearings – with specific focus on the nominee’s judicial philosophy including how the nominee views the constitution and the rule of law. The American people deserve nothing less.”

Operation Rescue:

"Operation Rescue will actively oppose any nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court that will disregard the lives of the pre-born and uphold the wrongly-decided case of Roe v. Wade.

"Obama received greater than expected opposition to his nomination of extremist pro-abort Kathleen Sebelius to HHS. He can only expect that opposition will continue to grow if he has the poor sense to appoint a justice that will promote abortion from the bench.

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Elections have consequences, and the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle is likely to further entrench President Obama's dedication to the abortion agenda. The President has said he would like 'common ground' on abortion policy. This is an especially relevant objective when you consider yesterday's release of public opinion data by the Pew Research Center showing a sharp decline in support for legal abortion. Choosing a judicial nominee who wants to enshrine the right to an unrestricted abortion in the United States Constitution would certainly be a step in the wrong direction. Appointing an abortion extremist to replace Justice Souter on our nation's highest court will continue the trend of activist court decisions do little reduce abortion in our nation."

Americans United for Life:

Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, promised her group would help lead the charge against any pro-abortion activist Obama may name to the high court.

“We will work to oppose any nominee for the Supreme Court who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution in order to elevate abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech," she told LifeNews.com.

Yoest said the jurist Obama names to the Supreme Court will tell the American public whether he is serious about reducing abortions or keeping it an unlimited "right" that has yielded over 50 million abortions since 1973.

“This nomination represents a test for a President who has expressed a public commitment to reducing abortions while pursuing an aggressive pro-abortion agenda," she said. "Appointing an abortion radical to the Court -- someone who believes social activism trumps the Constitution -- further undermines efforts to reduce abortion."

Priests for Life:

Upon hearing news reports of Justice David Souter's retirement from the US Supreme Court this June, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, commented, "This will unleash a Supreme battle. Judicial activism in our nation has given us a policy of child slaughter by abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Now the left will scream about 'no litmus tests' on abortion, but the fact is that all of us observe litmus tests at all times. If a racist or terrorist is unfit for the highest court in the land, why would a supporter of child-killing be any more fit? This is the question we will pose again and again during the process of replacing Justice Souter."

Richard Land:

Land told Baptist Press, "This retirement will, of course, not impact the court's balance. President Obama will undoubtedly nominate someone who is as liberal as, if not more liberal than, liberal David Souter, and thus you will just have an old liberal replaced by a young one. President Obama's ability to sell himself to the American people as a centrist will be hampered severely by his nomination of what will inevitably be a radically liberal justice."

Committee For Justice:

Given the economic crisis, your ambitious legislative agenda, and your promises to rise above partisanship, one would think you would eschew a bitter, distracting confirmation fight and a sparking of the culture wars by naming a consensus nominee that moderate Republicans and Democrats can embrace. While we remain open to evidence to the contrary, it is our belief that potential nominees such as Sonia Sotomayor, Kathleen Sullivan, Harold Koh, and Deval Patrick are so clearly committed to judicial activism that they make a bruising battle unavoidable.

We realize that, in the past, you have said that you want judges who rule with their hearts and you have even expressed regret that the Warren Court “didn’t break free” from legal constraints in order to bring about “redistribution of wealth.” But now would be a good time for you to clarify if you feel that you may have gone too far by endorsing judicial activism. For example, you could make it clear that you agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statement that “judges should make their decisions based only on the facts presented and the applicable law” (response to written question from Sen. Arlen Specter).

We also hope that you resist the pressure you will inevitably face from the various identity groups that dominate the Democratic base. It would be a shame if you chose a nominee based on their race, gender, or sexual identity, rather than focusing exclusively on qualifications and judicial philosophy.

We remind you of your opposition to gay marriage, your commitment to individual Second Amendment rights, your support of the death penalty, and the great value you place on the role of religion in society. We hope you will not contradict those positions by choosing a Supreme Court nominee who has questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty, expressed an extreme view of the separation of church and state, or wavered on the questions of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and an individual right to own guns. Also, given your promise to move the nation “beyond race,” it would be hard for you to explain the
nomination of someone who has expressed support for racial preferences, which polls indicate are now even more unpopular as a result of your election.

While many Americans – including some conservatives – are willing to give your experiment in using honey to coax cooperation from other nations a chance, the public is also looking for reassurance that our nation’s interests and sovereignty will always come first. Thus, now would be an awful time to choose a Supreme Court nominee who believes that American courts should put greater reliance on foreign law.

Finally, we remind you that, in the first year of his Administration, George W. Bush successfully nominated two former Clinton nominees – Roger Gregory and Barrington Parker – to the appeals courts in an effort to set a bipartisan tone. Now would be the perfect time for you to match the previous President’s gesture by renominating three unconfirmed Bush appeals court nominees who have bipartisan support – Peter Keisler, Judge Glen Conrad, and Judge Paul Diamond. Such a gesture would engender good feelings among Senate Republicans and would set a positive tone heading into what might otherwise be a bitter confirmation fight.

Concerned Women for America:

"The anticipated retirement of David Souter from the U.S. Supreme Court launches a national debate over the proper role of judges," stated Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "President Obama stated during the campaign that judges should rule according to 'empathy' for preferred classes of people, such as homosexuals and some ethnic groups, but not others. America, however, is a nation founded on the belief that we are all created equal and that the rule of law provides justice for all by following a written Constitution, not the whims and feelings of judges. Senators must live up to their constitutional duty to fully examine any nominee to determine if they respect the Constitution above their own opinions."

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA's Policy Director for Legal Issues, said, "If President Obama's nominee is in the mold of his recent choices, Senators and citizens must be engaged now more than ever in the confirmation process. Several of President Obama's nominees put forth as 'moderates' by the White House have turned out to be outside the mainstream upon careful review. This is why Senators must be diligent and take the time to closely examine whether each candidate will abide by the Constitution or make the Court their personal fiefdom."

Family Research Council:

In the speech that catapulted Barack Obama to fame in 2004, the young Democrat said, "There is not a liberal America or a conservative America. There is a United States of America." Five years later, the same man will face his biggest test to prove it: the nomination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Since the election, Washington has been prepared for a vacancy on the high court, most likely from the aging, Left-leaning justices. Yesterday, reports confirmed that Justice David Souter, 69, will be the first to exit, giving the new President his first crack at reshaping the Supreme Court. Will he plow ahead with a pro-abortion, anti-faith radical (as he did with 7th Circuit Court nominee David Hamilton) this early in his presidency--or will he bide his time on a full-blown congressional war and nominate a judge that both sides can agree on?

As a candidate, Barack Obama prided himself on his ability to work with conservatives. His first 100 days, however, have been a case study in unilateralism. When asked why he moved away from bipartisanship, the President dodged the question and said, "Whether we're Democrats or Republicans, surely there's got to be some capacity for us to work together, not agree on everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done."

On Wednesday, President Obama decided his best way to "get things done" was to use congressional rules to block any meaningful participation by Republicans on controversial policies like health care reform and education. While those decisions can be overturned, lifetime appointments cannot. As both sides are painfully aware, nothing in this administration's legacy will withstand the test of time like President Obama's judicial nominees.

To that point, the White House would be wise to take into account the growing public consensus on the sanctity of human life. While some people are pointing at social conservatives as the cause of the Republicans' woes, a new poll suggests that the GOP's platform on life may be its biggest appeal. According to the most recent Pew Research Center poll, American support for abortion is experiencing its steepest decline in at least a decade. Since last August, the proportion of people who believe that abortion should be legal in most or all cases has dropped from a small majority--54%--to 46%. The drop is particularly noticeable in the youngest generation (18-29) whose support for abortion dropped by five points (from 52% to 47%) in just nine months. The conservative trend is even affecting women. Fifty-four percent said abortion should be legal in most or all cases last summer, while less than half (49%) feel that way today.

Traditional Values Coalition:

The U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of taking a huge lurch to the far left with the exit of Justice Souter from the Court. Souter is certainly no loss for Constitutionalists, but he will most likely be replaced with someone far worse. During the election, President Obama stated that he wanted to appoint judges who had “empathy” and who understood what it was to be poor, black or gay. He clearly stated that he wanted judges who would not confine themselves to the Constitution or to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

From Obama’s public statements, it is clear that he will appoint a Justice who views the U.S. Constitution like a Wikipedia entry that can be edited, revised and distorted for the political agenda of the Justice. Obama wants a Supreme Court nominee who will ignore the Constitution; use his “feelings” to determine legal decisions; use foreign law to impose a liberal political agenda; and use the power of the Court to redistribute the wealth. The President has stated that he believes the Courts should be used to promote “economic justice,” – code for judge-ordered income distribution.

President Obama once mentioned former Chief Justice Earl Warren as the ideal person to serve on his Supreme Court. Warren was one of the most notorious left-wing judicial activists in our nation’s history. The President is likely to appoint a Justice who believes in the use of foreign law in interpreting cases that come before the Court. The use of foreign law in issuing rulings in American court cases will undermine self-government and destroy our Constitutional government. Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have an important role in advising and consenting to such nominations. They must seriously challenge the political views of anyone chosen by Obama for this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. No nominee who believes in using foreign law in making court decisions has any place on the Court. Our self-government depends upon it.

American Center for Law and Justice

American Center for Law and Justice

Principal Issues

Activities

About Jay Sekulow

Quotes

Jordan Sekulow Outraged That Administration Meets With Atheists Because "99.9% of Americans" Believe In God

Is This How Elections Work?

Robertson's ACLJ Files Anti-DC Marriage Brief On Behalf of 39 GOP Members of Congress

The ACLJ's Growing Worldwide Reach

Nelson Amendment Voted Down: The Right Responds

ACLJ and Its "Special Ops Team" Will Save Our Freedom

The Anti-Choice Movement As Seen From The Inside

Religious Right Claims Victory With Stupak Amendment

Oklahoma Prison to Be Run By Christians, For Christians

It Is Obama Who Needs To Apologize, Not Wilson

Trying to Set the Record Straight About Efforts to Try and Set the Record Straight

George Tiller and the DHS Report

SCOTUS Round-Up

Right Wing Reaction to Souter's Retirement