Quantcast

«

»

Jul 03 2013

Huelskamp: Supreme Court Attacked Jesus!

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who clearly wants to be mentioned in the same breath with Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Paul Broun and Louis Gohmert, went on Steve Deace’s radio show and declared that the Supreme Court in the DOMA ruling attacked Jesus himself! Oh, and the justices would have failed law school.

19 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Randomfactor

    Well, then, three days later DOMA and Proposition 8 should’ve risen from the dead.

    What happened three days after the decision? Oh, yeah…a lot of happy folks got married.

  2. 2
    raven

    and declared that the Supreme Court in the DOMA ruling attacked Jesus himself!

    Why can’t jesus defend himself from 5 old men and women wearing robes? We aren’t talking Ninjas or Army special forces here.

    Jesus is supposedly god, the creator and most powerful entity in the universe. If he can’t defend himself from aged humans with law degrees, then why call him god?

    It looks like Rep. Tim Huelskamp and most of the fundies know on some level that jesus/god has as much power as any fictional being, somewhere around zero.

  3. 3
    raven

    Fundies are boring.

    1. They always claim that jesus is god and god can do anything.

    2. Then they claim that jesus/god is nowhere and does nothing.

    3. So he needs humans to do anything.

    They might really believe in their invisible sky fairy, although it doesn’t look like it, but their belief is incoherent and contradictory.

  4. 4
    Loqi

    Why can’t jesus defend himself from 5 old men and women wearing robes?

    Ever been hit with a gavel? It’s mildly painful. Now imagine *five* of them. That could add up to moderately painful. Then imagine them brandished by people who drive iron chariots. I’d be pretty scared too if I were all-powerful.

  5. 5
    jaxkayaker

    Sure, they would have failed law school if they hadn’t passed law school. So there. QED.

  6. 6
    tubi

    @5

    Exactly my thought. It’s like saying, “Hank Aaron would never be able to hit more than 700 home runs.” Except that he did.

  7. 7
    eric

    Why can’t jesus defend himself from 5 old men and women wearing robes?

    Sadly, he would probably only need to defend himself from Kennedy, and the others won’t matter. SCOTUS is one heart attack away from a consistently and deeply conservative court.

  8. 8
    baal

    I’m pretty sure the constitution only exists to support Huelskamp’s religion and politics. Anyone who says otherwise is a Jesus hater and that includes you disproportionately christian and political SCOTUS judges.

    okee dokee then. All for me and none for you much?

  9. 9
    matty1

    I want to see the video of this Jesus vs Supremes dust up.

  10. 10
    jameshanley

    So conservative hero Ronald Reagan appointed a law school fail-out to the Supreme Court?

  11. 11
    John Pieret

    “Twisted logic, tortured the Constitution, I can’t even stand to read the decisions …”

    Besides, he’d have to go out and get someone to help him with the big words.

  12. 12
    Chiroptera

    John Pieret (quoting wingnuts), #11: Twisted logic, tortured the Constitution, I can’t even stand to read the decisions …

    One thing I’ve noticed is that conservatives rarely read the decisions that the disagree with. The actual law and how it was applied doesn’t matter, only whether the result was something that promotes what they like.

    (The same is sometimes true for non-conservatives, of course, but I very frequently get blank stares from conservatives when I ask them where in the decision did the majority’s reasoning go wrong.)

    Me, there were a lot of decisions I thought I disagree with…until I read the decision and found out that in many cases the legal reasoning was sounder. Kind of woke me up from my infantile (and similar to conservatives’ and libertarians’ views) of what constitutional law is all about.

  13. 13
    jameshanley

    Yep, Chiroptera, it’s only individual liberals who ever read SupCt decisions and find out the reasoning is sounder than they believe. No individual liberals or conservatives ever do.

    Me, as a libertarian I’ve been supporting SSM for well over a decade now, but when the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions came down, I didn’t even bother reading them; just launched into my libertarian screed about how they’d gotten the Constitution all wrong.

  14. 14
    freemage

    SCOTUS must have a stable full of iron chariots.

  15. 15
    Michael Heath

    Chiroptera writes:

    Me, there were a lot of decisions I thought I disagree with…until I read the decision and found out that in many cases the legal reasoning was sounder. Kind of woke me up from my infantile (and similar to conservatives’ and libertarians’ views) of what constitutional law is all about.

    jameshanley writes:

    Yep, Chiroptera, it’s only individual liberals who ever read SupCt decisions and find out the reasoning is sounder than they believe. No individual liberals or conservatives ever do.

    Me, as a libertarian I’ve been supporting SSM for well over a decade now, but when the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions came down, I didn’t even bother reading them; just launched into my libertarian screed about how they’d gotten the Constitution all wrong.

    James,

    Do you consider yourself representative of the type of libertarianism which currently influences our public policy? If not, than your point doesn’t rebut Chiroptera’s.

    From my perspective you generally don’t advocate in a manner representative of powerful libertarians, precisely because I haven’t seen you demand property right protections for the few, privileged in-group at the expense of other people’s critically important rights, e.g., black people accessing goods and services.

    Nor have I seen you advocate for the protection of certain rights, e.g., corporate rights, while supporting candidates and polices which inconsistently ignore or avoid the protection of other rights that must also be demanded to remain principled and consistent with the framework of the argument used to advocate for corporate rights, e.g., equality for women, non-Christians, voters, taxpayers, gays.

    So your post provides small utility by noting there’s a continuum of positions within the libertarian movement; it’s not much in a well-informed venue since that’s not breaking news. Especially since Chiroptera consistently demonstrates he’s very well-informed. Here I think his/her point holds, those libertarians who influence policy do predominately act like conservatives when it comes to Supreme Court decisions. I’d love to be wrong, I’d love to see a powerful energetic liberaltarian movement, but from my perspective that movement’s turned into a collective circle jerk while the Kochs, Tea Party libertarians, and Pauls reign. Which I truly regret.

    What I don’t regret is seeing you post some comments here. Hopefully we’ll be reading more from you.

  16. 16
    slc1

    Re Michael Heath @ #15

    MH says: What I don’t regret is seeing you post some comments here. Hopefully we’ll be reading more from you.

    Second the motion.

  17. 17
    Chiroptera

    jameshanley, #13:

    Okay, James, I will apologize for my over generalization and admit that there may be an intelligent and well-informed libertarian or conservative out there somewhere. I’ve never seen one myself, but I’m told that they exist so I’ll accept that.

    -

    Me, as a libertarian….

    And you may even be one, although to be honest the sum of everything I’ve read that you’ve written here would actually place you squarely within “liberal” territory.

  18. 18
    d.c.wilson

    To be fair, many people who call themselves libertarians today are actually theocrats who hate paying taxes (Rand Paul), so I’m not too surprised that many of them aren’t very cognizant of the legal reasoning behind rulings they don’t like.

    On the other hand, there are numerous rulings in which I understand the legal reasoning behind the but still disagree with the political results of them. And, there are the occasional rulings the I really look to me like they were decided for purely political reasons. I’m looking at you, Roberts and your marjority opinion the VRA case.

  19. 19
    Michael Heath

    d.c. wilson writes:

    To be fair, many people who call themselves libertarians today are actually theocrats who hate paying taxes (Rand Paul),

    No, to be fair and concede to reality, we need to accept the fact the conservative libertarians, like the Pauls, have long been present within the libertarian movement. This is not a new phenomena.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site