Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

DOJ Lawyer Calls Religious Liberty Organization a ‘Hate Group’

DOJ Lawyer Calls Religious Liberty Organization a ‘Hate Group’

“previously a lawyer with the ACLU of Massachusetts”

How did we reach the point where people in our justice department sneer at the very liberties and freedoms our country was founded upon?

The Daily Signal reports:

Justice Department Lawyer Smears Religious Liberty Advocate as ‘Hate Group’

A senior Justice Department official referred to a highly regarded religious liberty organization as a “hate group” in a recent LinkedIn post.

Eric P. Bruskin, assistant director of the commercial litigation branch in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, used the term to describe Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group founded in 1993.

The Justice Department’s social media policy discourages employee comments that could be “perceived as showing prejudice” toward characteristics such as religion.

Bruskin, previously a lawyer with the ACLU of Massachusetts appeared to follow the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing group that regularly calls Alliance Defending Freedom and other conservative organizations “hate groups.”

Bruskin used the term “hate group” in responding to a LinkedIn post by Jason Weida, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts who now is a state health official in Florida. Weida’s message also praised Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who routinely is attacked by Democrats.

In his post, Weida wrote: “Honored to speak with [senior counsel] Matt Sharp at Alliance Defending Freedom about the work we’re doing in Florida to protect kids from experimental medical interventions and to defend parental rights, all thanks to the leadership of Governor DeSantis.”

Bruskin referred to Alliance Defending Freedom in his reply to Weida, writing: “Jason, this is a hate group. You’re speaking at a conference for a hate group. Are these the beliefs you hold? If so, then it’s time we end our professional association.”

Bruskin’s title, workplace, and the preferred personal pronouns “He/Him” appear next to his name.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the Justice Department on Bruskin’s public comment on social media. Justice Department public affairs specialist Danielle Blevins replied Thursday in an email: “I received your inquiry. We’re going to decline to comment.”

Bruskin left the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts to work for the Justice Department in 2009, Barack Obama’s first year as president. In July 2020, he moved into his current career position as assistant director of commercial litigation.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Will Congress call Bruskin on the carpet to defend his lies?

Will AG Garland suspend him pending an investigation?

Ha Ha! Just kidding. Much more likely that he’ll be nominated to some higher post and the Republican’s will vote to confirm.

    Milhouse in reply to irv. | September 8, 2022 at 8:48 pm

    Lies? What lies? What he wrote was an opinion — a very wrong opinion, in my opinion — but not a lie. And he wrote it in his private capacity, so while there may be a policy discouraging such speech it isn’t and can’t be prohibited.

    And he can argue the policy doesn’t even apply, because his comment didn’t have anything to do with religion; he was simply reporting the true fact that ADF is what the SPLC calls a “hate group”. To the left the SPLC is not only a respectable organization but the expert on identifying “hate groups”. Its judgment is taken as infallible.

DINORightMarie | September 8, 2022 at 4:28 pm

This is why IMHO this group, NPOs, and other organizations need to sue the SPLC for defamation—it’s all done, using objective measures, with one-way, biased political intent, a means to an end, ie with malice. The SPLC carry es unmerited weight with the media and others in positions of power, which Big Tech and others use an “authoritative source” to censor, marginalize, and otherwise disparage legitimate individual causes, groups, and organizations working for good causes.

Case in point: last I checked, the SPLC classifies “birth centers” as hate groups/ organizations, because they offer options to expectant mothers and families, but not abortion.

    They can’t sue because “hate group” is inherently an opinion, a judgment, not a statement of fact. And SPLC’s standards are public knowledge; they’re wrong standards, but they’re not hidden.

Using their wording uses their twisted framing, without making them prove it to start, or defend it after.

“…a left-wing group that regularly calls Alliance Defending Freedom and other conservative organizations “hate groups.”

Why is “Alliance Defending Freedom” “conservative?” (Sem-Fascist, Ultra-Maga, perhaps?) Do this:

“…a left-wing group that regularly, along with the SPLC calls Alliance Defending Freedom and other groups supporting civil rights “hate groups.”

Build the argument that leads to your conclusions into the wording you use. The SPLC said it — true. And “Alliance…” is supporting a civil right enumerated in the constitution — “freedom of religion.” — true. Argue against that DOJ-guy. Why is this anti-civil rights guy in leadership at the DoJ, Garland? Etc.

The SPLC is a fraud and sees its mission as stifling conservative groups by attaching the words hate and racist to their missions

    Actually it sees its primary mission as accumulating lots of money in foreign bank accounts with no accountability. Fomenting hatred and encouraging terrorist attacks comes second.

I give money to the ADF. I like them. They are doing good work. They helped the Colorado baker that was sued and persecuted for not baking a cake for a same sex wedding. We need a purge at the DOJ.

The D’rat kakistocracy is festooned with like wokie-dokie twits…as intended. Hopefully, the next Trump presidency will do a better job of flushing them out of the federal bureaucracy.