In reality, FRC doesn't. It only has vitriol like so:
It may be Halloween, but Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly didn't bother disguising her activist agenda. In a stunning ruling on Trump's military policy, Kollar-Kotelly thrilled liberals by putting the brakes on the president's July order that stopped people who identify as transgender from serving. Although it's the same policy Barack Obama held for seven years, it's apparently unconstitutional now that Donald Trump is president.
Most Americans will probably never get used to judges substituting their own opinion for the law, but it was especially jarring yesterday when this one declared herself the final authority on U.S. military policy, despite never being elected for the job. As any credible legal expert would tell you, Kollar-Kotelly's opinion was amazingly presumptuous for an unelected district judge, who -- without the benefit of internal intelligence, the service chiefs' counsel, and Defense Department data -- is quite content telling the White House how to defend America.
It was a jaw-dropping move, suggesting that she knows better than the commander-in-chief, but that's the unfortunate climate of America's courts. Liberal judges have gone from rewriting the law to second-guessing our president in areas like national security, where the courts almost always defer to the executive branch. And this court doesn't tiptoe -- it leaps over the White House's authority on military issues.
Now the headline of FRC's condemnation of Kollar-Kotelly's ruling says the following:
However, it is clear that FRC sees the concept of "legal expert" with as much contempt as it sees the concepts of "truth" and accuracy." FRC seems to think the integrity of all of these concepts are mere expendables in its quest to shape America to its pseudo-Christian liking.
The experts used by FRC in its post are employees Travis Weber and Peter Sprigg. Weber has practiced law and does have a Master's Degree. But based upon his statement, Weber seems to be unschooled about how our court system works:
"This type of judicial activism gives the court a self-conferred 'veto' of any presidential decision concerning the military the court simply thinks is unlawful. That's not the way our constitutional order works."
Actually, our constitutional order does work that way. The courts do not issue vetoes. They see that laws follow the constitution and this also includes executive orders.
And then there is Peter Sprigg, whom I've written about more times than I can count. Sprigg has no law degree and no experience in practicing law. He is a pastor and a former professional actor. He also has a propensity for spinning shameless lies and distortions about the LGBTQ community.
In contrast, the judge FRC smears, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has been on the bench for 20 years.
So one side of a judicial decision, you have a judge with 20 years experience. On the other, you have an obviously wet-behind-the-ears fanatic and a man who couldn't give a proper legal reason for even picking his nose.
I think we know whose opinion to trust here.
