The Worldnutdaily is reporting that Howard Phillips is publicly opposing the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court because he once did pro bono work on a landmark gay rights case:
Continued Phillips: "Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda. It suggests an absence of an understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged."Phillips says it's now clear Roberts would not use "biblical morality in determining his position in particular cases."
And this from the founder of the Constitution Party, who apparently believes that judges should determine their positions based upon the Bible rather than the Constitution. I'd say that makes his choice of that name for his party absurd to the point of being downright Orwellian.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In looking for reactions to yesterday's ruling from legal scholars, I found this post on a Federalist Society blog by someone named P.A. Madison. The arguments, which run the gamut from the false to the downright silly, would make a great exam answer for my buddy Dan Ray to grade. I can almost see…
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 interesting responses. Stephen Henderson's article on the opinion in the Knight-…
Just noticed this very odd response by Mark Olson to my post about Robert Bork's mythical martyrdom. Much of the rhetoric in Olson's response would serve as a perfect example of how to execute the strategy known as poisoning the well, as he puts his own unique characterizations on events and…
As I mentioned, I did get to hear a few minutes of Sen. John Cornyn's (R-Texas) opening remarks in this morning's Alito confirmation hearing and got a good chuckle out of it. As is common among partisans of both parties, he portrayed he and his party as motivated solely by a concern for truth and…
The Constitution party used to be called the Taxpayers Party, and is a far conservative "christian"-oriented anti-tax party.
In my experience, the party should be called the Dominionist Party. The only person I personally knew who was involved with the party was a racist, unbalanced, Dominionist who strangely hated abortion in all cases but never even seemed to consider the mother in any of those cases. His website is http://jamesniemela.com/
I have seen a fair amount of sympathy for this party on the FreeRepublic, which I think is odd.
Well, at least they are straight-up about their advocacy for "judicial activism."