Jay Sekulow Says His Job To Get Bush Nominees Confirmed; But Is It? What Does God Require Of A Christian Involved In "Politics?"
By John Lofton, Editor
"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." - James 1:8.
What does God require of a Christian who is involved in "politics?" I put the word politics in quotes because when the State acts like God, as it does today in America, everything is "politics" —- murdering innocent unborn babies, homosexuals wanting to be "married," etc.
Well, I would say that, at the very least, a Christian involved in "politics" is required to explicitly defend the Christian faith and apply God"s Word to the political realm. Indeed, we are commanded to do this in Jude 1:3 where we are exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
To be sure, Christians will disagree as to how our faith applies to politics. But, that our faith does apply to politics is indisputable because Jesus Christ is King of kings, Lord of lords, the One Who has all power in Heaven and on Earth. Thus, He is Lord over politics and must be obeyed in this sphere as in all other spheres of life.
Concerning the current issue of picking judges and listing their qualifications, I would say that, for Christians, the most important "litmus test" for a judge is obvious: Any judicial nominee must, first, acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the supremacy of God and His Biblical Law. But, I have heard no Christian organization or "Christian leader"—- from the President on down —- say this, not one. I have heard such folks talk about the importance of judges being "strict constructionists" of the Constitution and not legislating from the bench and how they must be "bright" and have the appropriate "temperament" and on and on and on in this vein.
But, what about our Lord?
What about God and His Word?
Do they have nothing to do with judges, courts, justice, the law?
And if those who have not yet dared to speak this Name above all names, in the context of the current battle over the judiciary, say: "Of course He has something to do with all of this," then tell us, please, what? Tell us, please, if you believe what you say, why has His Blessed Name not passed your lips?
ACLJ's Jay SekulowIn a recent interview on Fox TV"s "Hannity & Colmes" program, Mr. Sekulow told how his organization had sent out 850,000 emails that day to shape public opinion concerning the next Supreme Court nominee. He said they were on radio and TV all day. He said: "Our side is motivated." He predicted the Supreme Court nominee debate would be "absolutely fierce."
<
p>
JUDGE OWEN swears under oath that she, too, will uphold Roe v. Wade and continue to be 'faithful' to it.So, what, exactly, are Mr. Sekulow and his crew fighting for? Do they, as Christians, have a Christian litmus test for Supreme Court nominees? Are they demanding that Mr. Bush name to the high court only individuals who will, first, honor and obey God and His Law? Are they doing what they should be doing, demanding that Mr. Bush put forth judicial nominees like former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, a man who understands that the most important qualification to be a judge must be that this person acknowledge and obey the God of the Bible and His Law?
No, not at all.
In his "Hannity & Colmes" interview, Mr. Sekulow said, at one point: "Look, you want the President to get his nominee through. That"s what our job is here" (emphasis mine). Huh? It is Sekulow"s "job" and the "job" of his group to simply get confirmed President Bush"s nominees to the high court? That"s it? Well, evidently, yes, that"s it —- for Mr. Sekulow & Company.
I strongly disagree.
It is, no doubt, the "job" of White House lobbyists and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to be cheerleaders for Mr. Bush"s judicial nominees, whoever they are. But, this sort of mindless cheerleading for Caesar and his party must never be engaged in by Christians —- never!
Mr. Sekulow, however, has consistently acted more like an RNC/White House lobbyist than one who, as a Christian, should be pushing a Christian agenda. A recent story in the "New York Times" was headlined: "A Year Of Work To Sell Roberts To Conservatives." This report said, in part:
"For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion….
"But with a series of personal testimonials about Judge Roberts, his legal work, his Roman Catholic faith, and his wife's public opposition to abortion, two well-connected Christian conservative lawyers -- Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of an evangelical Protestant legal center founded by Pat Robertson -- gradually won over most social conservatives to nearly unanimous support, even convincing them that the lack of a paper trail was an asset that made Judge Roberts harder to attack. Both had been tapped by the White House to build the coalition for judicial confirmation battles….
When conservatives expressed doubts, Mr. Leo said, ''I would say, 'I know the man.''' Mr. Sekulow agreed, saying, ''I have known John Roberts for 17 years. When I talk about John Roberts with the groups, it is not theoretical, it is based on firsthand, direct experience. He and I have argued cases together before the Supreme Court -- you can't get more direct than that.''
They made their case by recounting the briefs Judge Roberts had filed as lawyer for Republican administrations, including one arguing against the validity of the abortion rights precedent Roe v. Wade and another in support of allowing religious ceremonies at public school events.
Although Judge Roberts said at his confirmation hearings that his work as a legal advocate did not necessarily reflect his own views, Mr. Sekulow said he knew that Judge Roberts's heart was in it. ''He doesn't argue just to argue,'' Mr. Sekulow said….
OK, got it? The "Times" says Mr. Sekulow and the Catholic outreach man for the GOP were "tapped by the White House to build the coalition for judicial confirmation battles." If this isn"t acting as a cheerleader for the White House and the Republican Party, I don"t know what is. As for those briefs the "Times" says Mr. Sekulow cites, Mr. Roberts has said that while he signed them he did not personally work on them and they do not necessarily reflect his views.
And there"s more. A recent front-page story in the "Wall Street Journal" was headlined: "Crowd Control/In Judge Battle, Mr. Sekulow Plays A Delicate Role/Lawyer Rallies Evangelicals On Filibuster Issue, Keeps Them From Boiling Over/Lessons From The Schiavo Case." This report told how, on one of Mr. Sekulow"s radio shows, "callers suggested cutting off funding to the courts or impeaching judges responsible for offensive decisions." Such actions, of course, are not only needed but also are thoroughly Constitutional. But, according to the "Journal," Mr. Sekulow tried to cool such passions and "batted away" these ideas. This article describes his role as "channeling the anger of the religious right without letting it boil over….[he] is building a bridge between passion-driven activists and pragmatic Washington insiders."
On another one of his radio broadcasts, when a caller from Iowa questioned the lifetime appointments of judges, Mr. Sekulow reportedly changed the subject to judicial nominations and away from punishing out-of-control judges. He said, in part, to his caller: "I"m not in favor of impeaching a judge because you disagree with the opinion they held —- even if you strongly disagree." In other words, as I say, Mr. Sekulow —- more of a Washington insider than a passion-driven activist —- is working to prevent what must be done to stop judicial tyrants: abolish their courts, restrict their jurisdictions or impeach them.
The "Journal" notes that Mr. Sekulow is part of a group that has been "coordinating closely with the White House." They have met in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House with, among others, Tim Goeglin, the White House"s public liaison. The members of this group, it is said, "have friends in the Bush Administration whom they regularly update." The head of the grass-roots arm of Mr. Sekulow"s group is Gary Marx, a man who in the 2004 campaign was the Bush-Cheney national conservative coalition director who helped organize church-sponsored voter drives in Ohio.
JUDGE BROWN almost blew it but Sen. Orrin Hatch 'clarified' her into endorsing 'legal' abortion.Mr. Sekulow also endorsed Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General before Gonzales" confirmation hearing. He called for Gonzales" confirmation "without delay" saying he would be "an exceptional Attorney General" because he would "work to protect all Americans —- both at home and abroad." But, in his confirmation hearing, Gonzales made it clear that he would not protect all Americans. He would not protect innocent, unborn human beings from being murdered by abortion. He said, regarding various Supreme Court decisions "legalizing" abortion:
"Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman"s right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a — they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman"s right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity — ample opportunities — to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I"m concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it."
Well, no. Mr. Gonzales is wrong here, dangerously, egregiously wrong. The Supreme Court invented, out of thin air, out of nothing, this so-called "right of privacy." The high court "recognized" nothing. Roe and other cases "legalizing" abortion are not law because they contradict God"s Law. And even if there was a Constitutional "right" to privacy it would never allow the murder of innocent, unborn human beings.
In any event, Mr. Sekulow endorsed Mr Gonzales. But, why?
Why, instead of pushing a Christian/Biblical, pro-life agenda, would Mr. Sekulow endorse Alberto Gonzales who has pledged to uphold Roe v. Wade, the most egregious example of judicial activism ever, a ruling that had led to the slaughter by abortion of more than 40 million innocent, unborn babies?
Finally, on the day I was finishing this article, I got in the mail a fundraising letter from Jay Sekulow. He told me how many new abortion-related cases are coming before the Supreme Court. He invoked his group"s "cause of protecting unborn babies." Indeed, he said the money sent to him and his organization had the potential to save the lives of "millions of babies." He said: "By God"s grace, we are perfectly positioned to serve as champions – advocates – for the unborn in this country" (emphasis his). So, today, he said, send money because today is "a defining moment."
All of this, however, would be much more credible —- to put it charitably —- had Mr. Sekulow not endorsed pro-abortion judges. In previous mailings, TV and radio interviews, he has enthusiastically praised Bush judicial nominees William Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Janet Rogers Brown. All of these individuals, in their respective confirmation hearings, said they would enforce Roe v. Wade.
JUDGE PRYOR says Roe v. Wade has led to 'the slaughter of millions' but he'll enforce it.In his hearing, Pryor denounced Roe v. Wade as "the worst abomination in the history of Constitutional law," a decision "unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution," a ruling that "has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." But, amazingly, in this same confirmation hearing, Pryor also said: "Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade, I have acted in accordance with it as attorney general (of Alabama) and would continue to do so as a court of appeals judge." That"s right. Even though he believes Roe v. Wade has led to the "slaughter of millions" of innocent unborn babies, Pryor said he would continue to enforce this Supreme Court decision.
Priscilla Owen, in her confirmation hearing, said, regarding Roe v. Wade: "I have followed it, I have cited it, I have been faithful to it, and I would continue to do so if confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." Owen"s support of Roe v. Wade is so solid that in April of 2005 Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sent a memo to some of his colleagues which reads, in part: "The only objection to Justice Owen"s nomination is a perception that she is hostile to following the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. On the contrary, a careful reading of her decisions demonstrates that she accepts Roe…."
In her confirmation hearing, Janice Rogers Brown was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) if she saw "a right of privacy" in the Constitution? She replied: "No." This was an important question because such a "right" was simply invented and asserted in Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions, a "right" allowing women to get abortions. Realizing that Brown had, in effect, repudiated Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion high court rulings, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), supposedly a pro-life conservative, jumped in to "clarify" what Brown had told Leahy.
Hatch: You said that you did not find the right to privacy in the express language of the Constitution.
Brown: That"s correct.
Hatch: Well, nobody can find it there.
Brown: Nobody can find it there.
Hatch: But do you agree there is a right to privacy that"s now been established by the Supreme Court in Griswold and —
Brown: It"s clearly established by the Supreme Court. That is the law.
Hatch: Do you accept it?
Brown: Certainly.
Now, this is an amazing and disturbing exchange. First, even though Hatch and Brown agree there is no "privacy right" in the Constitution, this doesn"t seem to matter. Next, both of them agree that even though this "privacy right" is not in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has established such a pro-abortion "right" —- which the Court cannot do. And finally, both Hatch and Brown agree that the pro-abortion Supreme Court decisions are "the law" —- which they are not. No Supreme Court ruling is automatically "the law" just because the Supreme Court says so.
So, if Pryor, Owen and Brown have all pledged, under oath, to enforce Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings "legalizing" the murder of innocent, unborn children, why is Jay Sekulow praising these judges? Why does he say he"s pro-life while urging fellow Christians to support pro-death judges?
Well, I don"t know. But, I am certain of this: No man can serve two masters, God and mammon; a house divided against itself cannot stand; and when you sin against the Lord be sure your sin will find you out. And I am certain of these things because God says so (Matthew 6:24, Mark 3:25, Numbers 32:23).