Robertson/Sekulow Telemarketer Says, Falsely, John Roberts Against Partial-Birth Abortion, Homosexual Marriage; “ACLJ” Spokesman Says Statement “Not Authorized”
By John Lofton
The nice lady on the phone is telling me, with great certitude, that Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts “is against the partial-birth abortion, and he is against gay marriage,” and this is why a Christian should support him. The nice lady – and I mean it; I’m not being snide; she is nice — works for “InfoCision,” a Christian call center that is gathering petitions supporting Roberts for Pat Robertson’s “American Center For Law & Justice” (ACLJ) whose Chief Counsel is Jay Sekulow.
‘CREATIVE THINKING’ of one telemarketer about John Roberts a little too ‘creative.’ But then virtually everything Sekulow & Company have said about Roberts is wrong and needs ‘corrective action’I learned about this spread of misinformation first-hand when I recently got a phone call asking me if I would listen to a recorded call from Jay Sekulow who is Chief Counsel for Pat Robertson’s “ACLJ.” I said sure and here is what Mr. Sekulow had to say in its entirety:
“This is Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the “American Center For Law & Justice,” and I want to thank you for taking my call. I’m calling you today because your future, your children’s and grandchildren’s futures, are being profoundly shaped right now by what’s happening in Washington D.C. The resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor creates the most critical vacancy possible on the Supreme Court of the United States.Justice O’Connor was the one justice both sides argued to get a vote from and it was her vote that frequently was the deciding vote on many cases that you and I hold dear.
“Now, President Bush has nominated Judge John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor. I’ve known Judge Roberts for 17 years and have litigated with him at the Supreme Court of the United States. John Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee and there’s no doubt he will uphold and respect the Constitution as it is written.
“With so many critical issues facing the Supreme Court —, ranging from religious freedom to human life —much is at stake. The “ACLJ” is uniquely positioned in Washington DC with our offices directly across from the Supreme Court of the United States and literally one block from our nation’s capital. We can and will be your voice in this critical battle. Now, please, stay on the line a few moments longer and one of our representatives will add your name to our petition. Thank you for your support and may God bless you.”
OK, not much of any substance here, to put it mildly. As for Roberts supposedly upholding “the Constitution as it is written,” Roberts himself has said repeatedly, for example in his 2003 confirmation hearing: “I don’t have an overarching, uniform philosophy….I don’t have an overarching, guiding way of reading the Constitution.”
In any event, after listening to this Sekulow message, a nice, live, not-recorded, unidentified lady from “InfoCision” comes on the line. She asks if I want to sign their petition? Then this exchange takes place with me asking the questions:
Q: Is there someone I can talk to about why Mr. Sekulow and the “ACLJ” are supporting Judge Roberts, what it is that they think are the reasons a Christian should support him?
A: Oh, I see. Well, because he is against the partial-birth abortion, and he is against gay marriage. He is against all those things.
Q: What has Roberts said that’s against partial birth abortion?
A: Um, well – I’m not exactly sure.
Q: What about gay marriage? What has he said about that? I’d like to go and look it up.
A: Oh, OK, well I’m going to go ahead and give you our website, all right?
Q: So, the [“ACLJ”] web site has answers to my questions?
A: Oh yes they do, yes they do.
Q: Actually, I’ve been to the web site and the website doesn’t have anything [that shows Roberts is against partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage.]
We both go to the “ACLJ” web site.
Q: Now where do I go to see the information on [Roberts being against] homosexual marriage?
A: Well, I’m not exactly sure where.
Q: OK, how about Roberts’ position on partial-birth abortion?
No reply.
Q: How come you don’t know where [any of this information] is?
A: I had a print-out on it [from the web site].
Q: Do you have this print-out in front of you.?
A: No. So, you didn’t want to add your name then [to a petition]?
Q: Well, maybe I could leave my phone number and somebody could call me back [with the requested information about Roberts being against partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage]?
A: Well, no, what I’m going to do is I’m going to give you a number that’s directly to the “American Center For Law & Justice.” She gives me the number.
Q: OK, and what do I do then?
A: You would just ask to talk to somebody on where John Roberts stands on [the issues of partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage.]
Q: OK.
A: But I know that he is against those issues.
Q: I know, you keep saying that. But why can’t you refer me to something on [the “ACLJ” web page]?
A: Well, as I said, it is on the web site….
Q: Well, maybe you could call me back. Why don’t I leave my fax number and you could fax it to me or call me back and read it to me.
A: I don’t have those capabilities. Unfortunately I’m not able to call you back.
Hmmmm, a telemarketer unable to call a person? Yep, that’s what she says.
Q: Why can’t you call me back?
A: Because we have so many people that we are trying to reach today.
Q: I see. Well, OK.
A: But I can send you out a letter with more information.
Q: One of your “ACLJ” fund-raising letters you mean?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, I think I’m already on your mailing list. But, here’s an article I’m looking at on the “ACLJ” web site. It’s a newspaper story headlined: “Judge John Roberts: His Views Still A Mystery.”
A: That’s what it says? Oh, wait a minute, just one moment.”
She returns shortly to tell me John Roberts “has a web site, too.”
Q: You mean the site of the appeals court on which he serves?
A: Well, yes. And if you put his name in you will get lots of information.
Note: There is nothing on this appeals court site which says Roberts is against partial-birth abortion or homosexual marriage.
Q: Why are you so certain on his position on same sex marriage and on partial birth-abortion when I can find nothing he’s said about this?
A: Well, we know that he is a conservative Christian.
Q: Then why do you think he has said Roe v. Wade is settled law and he has no personal view that would keep him from abiding by it?
A: Well, his wife also works against those issues too (partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage).
Q: No, but I’m talking about his previous testimony where he said he would uphold previous court abortion decisions. Why do you think he would have said that if he is a Christian?
A: Well, because I believe that just — because he has Christian beliefs just like you and I.
Q: Yeah, but I’m a Christian and you are too and we don’t support Roe v. Wade, right?
A: No, that’s right.
Q: Then why do you think he said what he said, that he would uphold Roe v. Wade?
A: No, he would not. We want to overturn that.
Q: No, he said Roe v. Wade was settled law.
A: Well, sir, I thought it was the opposite of that, that he wants to overturn that. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’m gonna go ahead. You can hang up. I’m going to give you the phone number of the “ACLJ.”
Q: Well, what is your position there?
A: Well, I work for a company and we’re called InfoCision
Q: What is it?
A: We are a Christian call center, and we’re in Austintown, Ohio,and we’ve got one in Akron, and the “ACLJ” uses us because, you know, we are the best way to get out the word.
Q: Yeah, but honestly, and this is no disrespect to you, obviously, because they just hire you to do this mechanical function, this doesn’t mean you necessarily know anything about John Roberts, right?
A: Well, I do know just a little bit, that he is a conservative Christian, sir, and that we are going to support him.
Q: As I let you go here, we both agree that no conservative Christian can support abortion or any abortion decision, and he has said that he has no personal view that would cause him to be against those court rulings. You need to do a little more research.
A: I will, and thank you for calling.
Q: God bless you
A: God bless you too. Good-bye.
Q: Good-bye.
* * *
OK, I dial the “ACLJ” phone number that was given me. Another nice lady answers. Among her duties, she says, she is an “information specialist.” Here’s the way that conversation went:
Q: Hi, how are you?
A: I’m doing just fine.
Q: I got the recorded message from Jay asking me whether or not I wanted to sign the petition [supporting Judge Roberts].
A: OK.
Q: And the lady that I talked to [at “InfoCision”] said that you had some information on your web site about the record of John Roberts. Is there somebody I can talk to about that?
A: You can ask me about it.
Q: OK, she said there was some information on your website about John Roberts being against homosexual marriage and partial birth abortion. I tried to find this information on your website. But, I can’t find it.
A: OK, now I know there was some information about him, but I don’t know if there’s anything specifically about partial birth abortion or gay marriage.
Q: But, the “InfoCision” lady said Judge Roberts is a conservative who’s against partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. She said this information is on your web site. I’ve done a lot of research and I don’t find anything anywhere that says he’s against those things.
A: Have you looked at Jay Sekulow’s “Trial Notebook” [on our web page]?
Note: I look at this feature. It says nothing about Roberts and partial-birth abortion or homosexual marriage.
Q: I’m going to give you my name and number and if you come up with something on those two specific issues, call me, please.
No reply to this request.
A: You might want to write to our Legal Department and see if they have that or can give you specific information. She gives me the Legal Department’s fax number. I fax my questions about evidence that Roberts is against partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. I get no answer.
Q: I’m assuming we both agree that no Christian could uphold any court decision that legalized abortion.
A: Could do what now?
Q: I said no Christian could support and be in favor of or enforce, or abide by any court ruling that made abortion legal, right?
A: I don’t know really what that means, exactly.
Q: We think court decisions that made abortion legal are bad decisions, right?–
A: We’re against abortion.
Q: And we’re against any decision or any court that holds abortion is legal, right? That’s what I was getting at.
A: Well, what kind of court decisions do you mean?
Q: Well, like the Roe v. Wade decision.
A: No, I don’t think we’re in support of that.
Q: Well, Judge Roberts said that it was “settled law” that he would uphold it.
A: OK, well I think what he’s saying is that it is law right now, that you can have abortions, but we don’t agree with that.
Q: Right, but he said he agrees with that law, that he would uphold that law. He didn’t criticize it. He said he would uphold it as an appeals court judge
A: Yeah, judges have to uphold the law. If they don’t then they’re going outside of what their job is.
Q: Are you saying that whatever the Supreme Court says is law?
A: I’m not saying that.
Q: Well, you just said he had to uphold the Roe v. Wade law; he has to, you said.
A: Well, the Supreme Court makes the decision, then the lower courts have to abide by that. That is how the law is set up right now.
Q: So what you are saying is that what the Supreme Court says is law.
A: (pause) I don’t know specifically what you are saying.
Q: Well, is Roe v. Wade the law because the Supreme Court says it is?
A: Right now it’s what is set up in our system. I’m not an attorney, and I feel like you’re using semantics against me here. I don’t know what you mean. I’m against abortion.
Q: OK, you and I are Christians, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And we believe God’s law is the highest law, right?
A: Yes, we do.
Q: And we believe that anything that contradicts God’s law is no law, right?
A: It (Roe v. Wade) is a man’s law right now.
Q: But I’m saying any law passed by man that contradicts God’s law is not a valid law, right?
A: If it contradicts God’s law?
Q: If a court, or a legislature, contradicts God’s law, then it’s not a valid law, right?
A: I guess. Well, I don’t know.
Q: Well, that’s what I’m telling you. Christian teaching for two thousand years has been that if Caesar, or Bush, or the Supreme Court, or anybody passes a law that contradicts a law that’s God’s Law, like the prohibition of murder, that law of man is no good.It doesn’t matter what man says, you can’t make murder legal right?
A: I agree with that.
Q: Well, God bless you. We ought to stop right here, while we’re ahead, or while God’s ahead. Thank you. I appreciate your help.
A: OK, you’re welcome.
* * *
Gene Kapp, press spokesman for Jay Sekulow, sent me the following statement: “The call you received was designed to generate support for the nomination of John Roberts. However, the communicator was not authorized to state how Roberts would rule in particular cases including partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Corrective action has been taken to ensure that the ACLJ message regarding Roberts is communicated consistent with our position. We support the nomination of John Roberts and we are confident that, as a Justice, he will interpret the Constitution - not legislate from the bench.”
I appreciate Kapp’s quick reply. But, one does wonder how many “InfoCision” folks spread this misinformation, or similar misinformation, to how many thousands of people? And, if misinformation was spread to thousands of people, will they all be called back and told that what was said to them was wrong?
Finally, and ironically, Kapp’s reply conveys more misinformation about John Roberts. He says Roberts will, if confirmed, “not legislate from the bench.” But, Roberts has already revealed that he has no problem with “legislating from the bench.” In fact, in his confirmation hearing to be an appeals court judge, he said he had to follow Supreme Court precedents like Roe v. Wade – a decision which, arguably, is the most outrageous example in our history of “legislating from the bench.”
Question: What’s the difference between judges who “legislate from the bench” (for example, all the pro-Roe v. Wade judges) and a judge who says he would never “legislate from the bench” but he would obey, indeed must obey, the rulings of those who did “legislate from the bench?” Answer: None. This is a distinction without a difference.
Discuss this article