1. dispatches
  2. Lofton and Sekulow

Lofton and Sekulow

By stcynic on March 14, 2006.

John Lofton, the Constitution Party maven and genuine theocrat, has an essay up condemning Jay Sekulow as a mindless cheerleader for Bush's judicial nominees. Sekulow is the director of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. And just to show you in their own words how completely insane the Constitution Party is, take a look at this statement of what it would take for Lofton to support a judicial nominee:

1. An iron-clad, no-compromise insistence that all judicial nominees must, first, acknowledge the God of the Bible as the source of law. This would mean a pledge to disregard all human laws and/or court rulings that conflict with God's Law.

2. An iron-clad, no-compromise insistence that all judicial nominees must be truly pro-life which means no exceptions regarding abortion - none.

Yikes. Here's a pretty good rule of thumb, I think: If you think Jay Sekulow is not enough of a Christian conservative, you're so far out on the lunatic fringe that we may not be able to spot you with the Hubble telescope. Yes, Virginia, it is possible to be even scarier than Robert Bork.

Tags
theocracy

More like this

Jay Sekulow Expose`

Tony Mauro has written a pretty devestating expose` on Jay Sekulow, director of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

Ten Commandments Case on Wednesday

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on two cases involving the Ten Commandments being posted in government buildings and courthouses, one in Kentucky (McCreary) and one in Texas (Van Orden).

Interesting Debate on the Pledge Case

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has an interesting debate on the subject of the pledge of allegiance and the case before the Supreme Court right now.

What the Schiavo Case Reminds Us About Conservative Judicial Theory

Judge Birch's bold upbraiding of the President and the Congress over the unconstitutional "Terri's Law", which attempted to tell the courts what sort of decision rules they should apply in a case, has attracted some in

::Hmmm. Scurrying off to check the Texas Republican Party platform to see if it materially differs from Lofton's group's platform . . .::

By Ed Darrell (not verified) on 14 Mar 2006 #permalink

Did they take a big black Sharpie to that whole "no religious test" bit (Article VI, section 3) of the Constitution? I could've sworn it was in there...

They don't have to ignore the "no religious test" bit here. God's existence is a fact. The truth of the Bible is a fact. "Religion" is only Man's way of misinterpreting God's truth.

So their judge wouldn't have a religion. He'd have a personal relationship.

Do you think that "iron clad,no-compromise insistence" on pro-lifery extends to the death penalty?

By Ginger Yellow (not verified) on 14 Mar 2006 #permalink

One wonders what thse yokels would make of Thomas Jefferson's distrust of organized religion. Here's just one quote of his that speaks to their flim-flam:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.