Perkins and Mickelson Demand Impeachment of Justices

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council went on Jan Mickelson’s radio show and the two of them demanded that Congress remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over marriage cases and impeach any justice who rules on the side of marriage equality.

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.”

*yawn* Do what we want or we’ll fire you! Of course, that constitution that they claim to love so much (at least the King James Version of it) deliberately insulates the justices from that kind of pressure by giving them tenure for life. They’re all for originalism, except when they’re not. And they love the constitution, except when they don’t. And then there’s this:

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.

Funny how suddenly everything is a religion to them other than, you know, religion. The Ten Commandments are totally not religious, they claim, but taking a liberal position on an issue is. Could their position possibly get any more absurd or incoherent?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Could their position possibly get any more absurd or incoherent?

    Given their track record, I’m sure that they’ll do their utmost to do so. And will likely succeed. As you’ve said, there’s no bottom to this barrel.

  • abb3w

    Contrariwise, as observant Jews who have officiated at same-sex weddings, Kagan and Ginsburg are the only two justices who have indicated they will be civilly impartial in this dispute between the religious and to same sex marriage supporters. Therefore, the seven other justices are actually the ones who should be recusing themselves.

    Nohow, the FRC is a bunch of ignorant idiots that would embarrass a brigade of baboons.

  • Jared James

    What doesn’t violate these buffoons’ religious freedom? Can I have churros with my coffee in the morning? Because, as we all know, churros are a Mexican treat, and that is a Catholic-majority country, so…

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    abb3w, as an amateur baboon fancier* let me insist that you desist from insulting baboons!

     

     

    __________

    * Eeeeeeeew!! Not in that way….

  • StevoR

    .. the two of them demanded that Congress remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over marriage cases and impeach any justice who rules on the side of marriage equality.

    Yep. The party of Small Government in action again – also the party that has made Congress action an oxymoron.

  • StevoR

    .. sending the message to the justices that “if you try it again we will impeach your sorry keisters.”

    Hmm. how about if the Justices decided to jail Perkins and Mickelson for contempt of coiurt or something instead based on that? Wonder how they’d feel if things were reversed?

    “Why should a religious minority like Kagan or Ginsburg, I’m not talking about their Jewish background,..

    Oh you ain’t eh?

    Funny that, I could’ve sworn you just mentioned it right then & there. I think your dog-whistle is broken, it’s audible to people too. Someone please remind them the next time they use the phrase Judaeo- Christian please!

    .. secular progressivism, their form of religion, ..

    Bzzt. As others have noted before me being secular (or agnostic /atheist) is as much a religion as bald is a hair colour.

    ..why does their religion get a seat at the table and everybody else’s view gets vilified?”

    Not everyone’s Mickelson – just yours because it deserves to be. Because it denies others their humanity and respect as people and is hypocritical, stupid and bigoted. Well you did ask!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    abb3w “Contrariwise, as observant Jews who have officiated at same-sex weddings, Kagan and Ginsburg are the only two justices who have indicated they will be civilly impartial in this dispute between the religious and to same sex marriage supporters…”

    Exactly. They have to recuse themselves.

  • John Pieret

    if you try it again we will impeach your sorry keisters

    As always, the bigots’ rhetoric soars. And what, exactly would be the “high crimes and misdemeanors” those justices would have committed … not having heeded the bigots’ demands?

  • caseloweraz

    “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.

    Way back when, Steve Allen’s variety show had a “man on the street” feature where a camera crew went out and filmed people. They didn’t talk to the people, they just filmed them walking around. (I use “filmed” in a colloquial sense.) Back in the studio, whenever Allen’s sidekick saw a young man with a frown, he’d quote a standard line: “Sure, sure — give everyone else a break but me — sure, sure.” I guess it comes from a movie, but I don’t know.

    Mickelson’s remark is like the inverse of that: “Sure, sure — give everyone else the shaft but them.”

  • theguy

    “I’m not talking about their Jewish background”

    (sing-song voice) I’m not buying it!

    “I’m talking about their secular progressivism, their form of religion”

    Ahem, cough (bullshit) cough.

    “why does their religion get a seat at the table and everybody else’s view gets vilified?”

    What, Scalia and Thomas aren’t enough for you? Why do they get to stay on the court if the liberal Justices are to be removed?

  • thebookofdave

    I’m talking about their secular progressivism, their form of religion

    I searched thoroughly for a commandment dealing with marriage partners, but couldn’t find one in the secular progressivist scriptures. Jan or Tony should quote chapter and verse, or a relevant edict issued by the secular humanist pope, when attempting to represent our congregants.

    While they are at it, they should read the First Amendment of the constitution (the one they think protects Christians only), and lear that religious expression, even the secular progressivist faith, is not a conflict of interest, but one of our fundamental rights.