Dispatches from the Creation Wars

More Extreme Anti-Judicial Rhetoric

I swear there must be some sort of office pool at Religious Right headquarters to see who can come up with the most ridiculous and hyperbolic rhetoric against judges. Here’s the latest from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council:

“The court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government — more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups,” he said last week.

Can rumors of late night rituals where they drink the blood of children be far behind?


  1. #1 Mark Paris
    April 14, 2005

    I for one hope they become increasingly strident and outrageous. That way, one hopes, the ordinary guy who isn’t either a rightwing religious fundamentalist nut or a flaming liberal christian hater will start to think maybe those RRFNs are a little odd and maybe ought not to be listened to.

  2. #2 Matthew
    April 14, 2005

    This is all getting out of hand. I’m almost becoming scared. What exactly judges have done different in the past year than they did in the previous 200, I’m not sure. I don’t know how this is going to end, but it’s probably not going to be pretty.

  3. #3 Troy Britain
    April 14, 2005

    Can rumors of late night rituals where they drink the blood of children be far behind?

    I haven’t heard about that, but I did hear that the judiciary meets at midnight deep in the forest where they have unnatural sexual relations with Satan and his demons.

    It’s true you know.

  4. #4 CPT_Doom
    April 15, 2005

    Let’s be clear, if the judiciary is hostile to anything, it is the imposition of a religious orthodoxy in place of the Constitution.

  5. #5 Chris Krolczyk
    April 15, 2005

    What’s scarier here, folks: the fact that some mushwit referred to a Supreme Court justice as being an advocate of “Leninist” and “Satanist” laws and was actually taken seriously by the group that hosted him, or that the majority leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives seems utterly bereft of a clue about how judicial review works or the precedent that Marbury v. Madison set concerning it?

    It seems to me that there’s only one way to explain how all of this came to pass:

    ‘shrooms. And really powerful ones, at that.

    Because if it’s not because of drugs, then these people are serious. That’s clearly not an acceptable alternative.

New comments have been disabled.