MyDD :: Dobson Compares Supreme Court To KKK

Dobson Compares Supreme Court To KKK

by Chris Bowers, Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 04:37:42 PM EST

Good Lord. Here's the link. The transcription is mine:

Well I heard, uh, a minister the other day talking about, uh, the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Klu Klux Klan, that, uh, roamed the country in the South, and, uh, they, uh, did great wrong to, uh, civil rights and to morality, and now we have black robed men, and, uh, that's what you're talking about. The subtitle of the book is How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, by Mark Levin. Uh, introduction by Rush Limbaugh, which oughtta tell you something.

The portion I transcribed runs roughly from 22:50 to 23:35 on the link.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

A brief summary (none / 0)

of Levin's book. The imminent constitutional scholar's book is briefly summarized here.

From freeperville:

The Supreme Court Endorses Sodomy, Terrorist Rights, and Importing Foreign Law..... Is that in the Constitution?

You're right: It's not. But these days the Constitution is no restraint on our out-of-control Supreme Court. The Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims. Even though John Kerry was defeated at the polls, the majority on the allegedly "conservative" Supreme Court reflects his views and has absolute power. There's a word for that: tyranny.

In Men in Black, 77 WABC radio talk show host and legal scholar Mark Levin dissects the judicial tyranny that is robbing us of our freedoms and stuffing the ballot box in favor of liberal policies. If you've ever wondered why--no matter who holds political power--American society always seems to drift to the left, Mark Levin has the answer: the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court, subverting democracy in favor of their own liberal views.

In Men in Black, you'll learn:

How liberal judicial activism is based on a legal theory that upheld slavery and segregation
Why Roe v. Wade not only mandated abortion-on-demand but made the Constitution null and void.

How the Court wants to import laws from other countries to help win the culture war for liberals
Why the justices think noncitizens deserve equal rights with citizens.

How helping terrorists file suit against the United States is another innovation of our Supreme Court.

Wow! No wonder "the great one" is so upset with the Supreme Court. That would be an awesome indictment if any of it were true.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 05:13:58 PM EST

Re: A brief summary (3.00 / 1)

What they don't tell you:

Five Republicans were in the majority for Roe v. Wade.

Five Republicans (and no Democrats) upheld Roe in 1992.

Justice O'Connor (Reagan appointee) is one of the ones most interested in foreign law.

Justice Kennedy (another appointee of St. Reagan) was the author of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which overturned sodomy laws.

There is only one true liberal Democrat on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Supreme Court is 7-2 in favor of the Republicans. Breyer is quite the moderate Democrat.

How voting Republican will solve this man's problem is beyond me.

by wayward on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A brief summary (none / 0)

You consider Stevens a Republican?

by Terp on Wed May 18, 2005 at 05:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jesse Jackson . . . (none / 0)

. . . made similar comments a few years back about Clarence Thomas:

A few years ago Jackson . . . condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's vote to place limits on affirmative action programs . . . Likening Thomas to a Klansman, Jackson asserted, "At night, the enemies of civil rights strike in white sheets, burning crosses. . . . By day, they strike in black robes."

Of course, the right went nuts about this. From an article by John Perazzo in Frontpage Magazine:

This type of racial name-calling is nothing new for the political Left . . . The ugliness goes on and on. . . . Imagine the public outcry we would have heard if white speakers had uttered such mean-spirited nonsense.

Indeed. You're up, Mr. Perazzo!

by tgeraghty on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 05:47:16 PM EST

If Bush (none / 0)

can get David Duke on the Supreme Court, he will. Who put Bush in office anyway?

by kitebro on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:16:42 PM EST

These Dominionists-in-Christian's clothing must be (none / 0)

outed! Dobson is so far off track on this one he needs to be called out by all Christians! Here, I'm starting it. Let it begin with me...

Just another Jesus followin' Green for Constitutional Democracy. :-)
dailyJam.blogspot.com

by JamBoi on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:44:35 PM EST

Re: These Dominionists-in-Christian's clothing mus (3.00 / 1)

Dobson is a fraud and a dangerous one, far more dangerous than Falwell or Robertson.

Falwell and Robertson are just country preachers who made the big time. They have a big following, but are guaranteed to say something stupid on a regular basis, which means relatively few people take them seriously.

Dobson is educated, folksy, and most important, is a psychologist. He knows what to say to sound moderate, and he knows how to get his followers to do what he wants. Dobson knows how to steer any debate, theological or otherwise, back to what he wants it to be and where he wants it to be.

For example, an article in a popular Chrichby a young woman that mentions that "virginity pledges" aren't working and that when they do, they are producing "Bill Clinton virgins". More importantly, they are practically useless for single twenty-somethings. To make a long story short, the point of the article is that the Christian community needs to better present it's position on not having sex outside of marriage.

Dobson's article in response completely ignores the woman's message and goes straight to his political theme - that this is a symptom of the decline of morality in America. A legitimate theological discussion has been short-circuted and turned toward a political goal.

Dobson is also making a considerable amount of money off of his various self/family improvement books. To my evangelical friends Dobson, by the authority of his psychology degree and his simple, folksy style, is the bona-fide expert on marriage, family, and child-rearing. Inevitably, Dobson uses these opportunites to reinforce his political message, doing so with a comment here, an anectdote there in a way that it is barely percieved by the reader.

Dobson is by far the most dangerous of the evangelical leaders, both to good Government and to Christianity as a whole.

by wayward on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These Dominionists-in-Christian's clothing mus (none / 0)

Chrichby???

That should be "Christian magazine by"

/must proofread posts.

by wayward on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reminds me of the old comment . . . (none / 0)

. . . about Justice Hugo Black, whom FDR appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937. As a young man in Alabama, Black had joined the Klan. On the court, he proved to be an active supporter of Brown vs Board and other pro-civil rights decisions of the court.

The standard joke was that, as a young man, Black had dressed in white robes and scared the hell out of black folks. As an old man, he dressed in black robes and scared the hell out of white folks.

Some white folks have changed since those days, some have not...

by DFLer on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 11:21:57 PM EST

Dobson's batshit insane (none / 0)

Dobson is proof that the real fundies won't settle for Bush's McJesus brand of bullshit.

by jcjcjc on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:54:10 AM EST

Supreme Court (none / 0)

This is much worse than the old John Birch "Impeach Earl Warren" days. That was a staple in the pre-Reagan era. What distinguishes this is the undertone of violence, clearly visible in Jon Cornyn. This is very close to Ruby Ridge wingnut survivalist stuff. Where are the grownups to try to put a stop to this? At least in the '50s we had Eisenhower to lend a little calm and moral force, even though he was surprised by some of Warren's rulings. Now the president is a cheerleader for the wingnuts.

by Mimikatz on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 12:12:41 PM EST

So now I don't know (none / 0)

what to call these lunatics.

Are they theocrats?

Anarchists?

Or are they just a lynch mob?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:41:52 PM EST