"Congress should pass legislation to remove from the federal courts their jurisdiction to hear these outrageous challenges to the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance"
About this Quote
A culture-war move dressed up as procedural housekeeping, Schlafly's line treats the federal judiciary not as a co-equal branch but as an obstacle course that can be rerouted when it starts asking unwelcome questions. The verb choice matters: "remove" and "jurisdiction" sound technical, almost bloodless, while "outrageous challenges" supplies the moral heat. It is a classic piece of activist framing: make the courts look like they are overreaching, make the challengers look contemptible, and then sell a drastic power shift as common sense.
The specific intent is blunt: preempt litigation that might force public institutions to disentangle civic ritual from religious symbolism. But the subtext is broader than the Ten Commandments plaques or the Pledge's "under God". It's a demand for cultural immunity: certain symbols should be exempt from constitutional scrutiny because they are treated as identity markers, not policy choices. Calling challenges "outrageous" signals that the offense isn't legal error; it's disrespect - the idea that secular plaintiffs are breaking a social contract by insisting the Constitution apply consistently.
Contextually, Schlafly is operating in the late-20th-century conservative ecosystem that fused anti-elite resentment with Christian nationalism-lite: courts, professors, and "activist judges" became villains, while Congress is cast as the people's instrument to restore order. The rhetorical trick is to turn minority rights into majority victimhood: the faithful (and patriots) are supposedly under siege, so emergency measures against the courts feel not authoritarian but protective.
The specific intent is blunt: preempt litigation that might force public institutions to disentangle civic ritual from religious symbolism. But the subtext is broader than the Ten Commandments plaques or the Pledge's "under God". It's a demand for cultural immunity: certain symbols should be exempt from constitutional scrutiny because they are treated as identity markers, not policy choices. Calling challenges "outrageous" signals that the offense isn't legal error; it's disrespect - the idea that secular plaintiffs are breaking a social contract by insisting the Constitution apply consistently.
Contextually, Schlafly is operating in the late-20th-century conservative ecosystem that fused anti-elite resentment with Christian nationalism-lite: courts, professors, and "activist judges" became villains, while Congress is cast as the people's instrument to restore order. The rhetorical trick is to turn minority rights into majority victimhood: the faithful (and patriots) are supposedly under siege, so emergency measures against the courts feel not authoritarian but protective.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Phyllis
Add to List
