I thought when _____nominated Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as Confederate Monument Attorney General, that was a low point, but I should have known that Fat Bastard could sink even lower into the swamp.
Yes, Matthew Whitaker, you boot-licking, ass-kissing, goose-stepping Deplorable, I’m looking at you.
Whitaker doesn’t like the Mueller investigation; he thinks it’s a rigged witch hunt—wonder where he got that phrase—and says he would never end it, he’d just cut the funding, so it would go away.
Luckily, the Democrats are in charge of the house and can fight him, and his master, on that, but … then there’s this:
In 2014, not so very long ago, Matthew Whitaker said that judges who do not have a New Testament “biblical view of justice,” should not serve on the federal bench and suggested that he would block the appointment of non-Christian judges if given the chance.
Yes, indeed, no Separation of Church and State for Matthew Whitaker; he also said atheists would be unfit to serve, as would …Holy Anti-Semite, Anti-Muslim Batman … Jewish and Muslim Americans.
“We believe God has three institutions: It would be the church, the family, and government.”
The Republican nominees were then asked a series of questions about their religious values, including their views on federal judgeships. Whittaker's two competitors, Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst, said they would use faith-based criteria and make sure they acknowledged “natural law”—the belief that legal rights and morals were given to humans by God and were not derived from the rules of society.
But Whitaker, far more rightwingnut and dangerous, went further, saying that using natural law as a criterion for appointing federal judgeships did not go far enough:
“As someone that’s interacted with the federal judiciary a time or two, I will tell you that I have a unique perspective on federal judges. And while I agree that I want to understand their judicial philosophy and whether they understand natural law and natural rights and then the founding documents and how they fit together...I don’t think that gets us far enough because natural law oftentimes is used from the eye of the beholder," he continued. "What I’d like to see is things like their worldview … Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? I think that is very important.”
The moderator interrupted, asking:
“Levitical or New Testament?”
That’s a sly way of asking whether people of the Jewish faith should be banned from serving as federal judges.
“I’m a New Testament, and what I know is as long as they have that [New Testament] worldview that they’ll be a good judge.”
Whitaker, for now, is not talking about his hate-based philosophy, but I’m sure one day soon he’ll have to answer for it, and I cannot wait to see him try and squirm his way out of this when some of the Jewish-Americans, or Muslim-Americans or Atheists in Congress start asking question.