Bradlee Dean: Not Getting Any Smarter

Bradlee Dean, theocratic preacher and host of one of the most far-right radio shows in the country, is obviously not happy with the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling. But since he isn’t smart enough to come up with any good arguments against it, we’ll have to settle for these terrible ones.

There are many in America, who are acting as if they were surprised to see what decision the Supreme Court would come out with concerning a redefinition of marriage. This decision was made by nine attorneys who are unelected by the people.

Yep, just like the Constitution establishes. And just like every decision you agree with is also made by nine attorneys who are unelected by the people. Funny how that fact only bothers you when you disagree with them.

The courts have shown once again their utter disregard for the republic and the rule of God’s moral law (Common Law) by advocating what God clearly condemns (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Roman 1:24).

I know, it’s like they think they’re supposed to rule on the Constitution instead of the Bible or something crazy like that. I, for one, can’t wait for the Supreme Court to get back to enforcing “God’s moral law” by requiring women to be virgins on their wedding day or be stoned to death. Or by imprisoning those who blaspheme, or work on the sabbath, or worship other gods. Wait, that’s Bradlee Dean who likely looks forward to that.

Speaking of sodomy-based “marriage,” what would America expect from a radical lesbian named Elena Kagan, who is known for “queerifying Harvard”? I warned in December of 2012: “Elena Kagan had never judged a case a day in her life, yet Obama, unqualified for office himself, has seen fit to ‘qualify’ her on the Supreme Court bench – just in time for the Court to review homosexual marriage.”

Yes, of course. A graduate of Harvard Law School and former senator is obviously unqualified to be president. And the former dean of Harvard Law School and former Solicitor General can’t possibly be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. But you know who is clearly qualified to declare both of them unqualified? The drummer from a shitty Christian version of Limp Bizkit.

Furthermore, to allow the Supreme Court to rule by oligarchy is illegal. They are allowing less than 1.6 percent of the population to dictate “law” to everyone else.

I know, right? Kinda like how those unelected judges allow parents to homeschool their children, a “right” mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. They’re allowing less than 3% of the people to dictate “law” to everyone else! It’s an outrage!

Interestingly enough, on the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. there is a huge engraving of Moses with the Ten Commandments in his hands. The inscription under Moses states, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty.” Our founders have laid in stone a truth that reproves those who sit in the Supreme Court chambers this day, and it would serve the American people well to do the same.

Actually, it’s a frieze that contains a whole bunch of historical lawgivers and Moses is but one of many, including Hammurabi, Justinian and even Muhammad; funny how . And it was built in 1929, so the founders had nothing remotely to do with what the building looked like. Oh, and the inscription “Justice the Guardian of Liberty” is on the outside of the building on the east facade, while the lawgivers frieze in inside the courtroom, so it does not appear “under Moses.”

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Hoosier X

    As another ancient lawgiver once said:

    “Facts are stupid things.”

  • Scientismist

    ..disregard for the republic and the rule of God’s moral law (Common Law)..

    So English custom, as incorporated into law in the individual US states, carries the imprimatur of God? Fascinating piece of folk theology, but what does it have to do with SCOTUS and the Constitution?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … former senator …

    Uh wut?

    Kagan‘s most prominent former positions were as a Clinton White House staffer and as Obama’s Solicitor General.

  • eric

    Another historical point about that frieze; in the Moses section, the artist left out (IIRC, intentionally) the first four commandments, because of their religious nature. The inscription only contains the last six.

  • psweet

    @3 — “A graduate of Harvard Law School and former senator is obviously unqualified to be president. ”

    Ed’s referring to Obama here.

    “And the former dean of Harvard Law School and former Solicitor General can’t possibly be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.”

    This refers to Kagan.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … less than 1.6 percent of the population …

    He finally got one right: nine justices are indeed less than 1.6% of the US population.

    (Psst, Bradlee – the same applies to the 535 elected members of Congress. Even if you threw in all the state legislators – hell, county commissioners and city councilmembers too – we live under legislation decided by fewer than 1% of the citizenry.)

  • scienceavenger

    The courts have shown once again their utter disregard for the republic and the rule of God’s moral law (Common Law) by advocating what God clearly condemns (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Roman 1:24).

    Every candidate for president who babbles on about God wanting him to run, or anything else overtly religious, should be asked the following question: If your reading of the Bible compells you to do X, but your reading of the Constitution compells you to do Y, which will you choose? And no copping out and claiming they are never in conflict: Commandment #1 conflicts with Amendment #1 for FSM’s sake.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    psweet @ # 5 – Oops, thanks for the correction!

  • Hoosier X

    And as another ancient lawgiver once said:

    “You’ve got to S-M-I-L-E to be H-A-P-P-Y.”

  • John Pieret

    Bradlee Dean: Not Getting Any Smarter

    That’s pretty much a given. The real question is whether he can avoid getting any dumber.

  • cptdoom

    Furthermore, to allow the Supreme Court to rule by oligarchy is illegal. They are allowing less than 1.6 percent of the population to dictate “law” to everyone else.

    Well, yes, Mormons do represent only about 1.6 percent of the population, but we’re all forced to accept their “eternal” marriages, even though every “real” marriage is only “to death we do part.”

    Wait, that was the small group about which he was complaining, right?

  • mikeym

    a shitty Christian version of Limp Bizkit.

    Dibs on “Limp Bizkit” for a band na…waitaminit..

  • http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/ sbh

    Is anybody else puzzled by the reference to the common law as God’s moral law?

    I’m guessing that he’s referring to the old English legal saw that Christianity is part of the common law, an idea with an interesting and tangled legal history, brought up but not usually applied in 19th century American trials for blasphemy.

    David Barton has the notion (if I understand him correctly) that the common law consists of the “laws of nature” (how things operate in the natural world) and the “laws of nature’s God” (the Bible), and that this common law (not the English common law based on past decisions of unelected judges) was made the law of the land by the seventh amendment to the Constitution. I don’t know how he arrives at this conclusion–he doesn’t argue it, he justs asserts it–but by this, uh, logic, he reaches the conclusion that for something to be constitutional it must be in accord with his interpretation of the Bible. I guess. Anyway, homosexuality is thus forbidden both by natural law (because sodomy is unnatural) and by God’s law (because the Bible forbids sodomy) and the circular reasoning is making my head spin but anyway it’s something of that sort.

    I don’t know where this notion comes from–is it original to Barton or did he get it from somewhere?–but I’m wondering if Bradlee Dean shares this particular brand of craziness? That would explain his odd conflation of the common law with the Old Testament. Of course it could be something else that just happens to resemble Barton’s odd view. Or maybe this notion is more widespread than I’m aware of? Does anybody know? I’m just wondering.

  • blf

    Is anybody else puzzled by the reference to the common law as God’s moral law?

    Not much. This is Barearse Demagogue for fecks sake, who will claim just about anything as long as he construes it to support his theocratic wetdream.