Obama’s Point Man on the Supreme Court Likely Perjured Himself about Black Panthers Case

This seems a fitting measure of the Obama administration’s sheer lawlessness: the man who helped draw up its legal brief in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC case currently pending before the Supreme Court seems to have committed perjury about a previous legal proceeding.

Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, may have perjured himself before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission while testifying about the DoJ’s dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Perez testified under oath before the commission on May 14, 2010, that the decision was simply “a case of career [Justice Department] people disagreeing with career people” and proof of the “robust interaction” his employees enjoy. E-mails released after his testimony proved that longtime Democratic Party lawyer Sam Hirsch, a political appointee, influenced Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum to drop the charges. The decision similarly followed a meeting between a career official and Associate AG Thomas Perrelli, “the department’s No. 3 political appointee.”

Perez had his own fascinating meetings. In March, Perez and Harper Jean Tobin had a nice “inspiring” tête-à-tête with Perez at the the National Summit on Gender-Based Violence Among Youth. Tobin is policy counsel of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), which told officials they should force public schools to:

• “Adopt school policies that ensure full inclusion of transgender students, including students’ ability to dress, access restrooms, and compete in sports consistent with their gender identity”; and
• “Institute age-appropriate, inclusive curricula on harassment and dating violence.” (Emphases added.)

Perez has demonstrated his fidelity to the LGBT cause by testifying before the Senate on behalf of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in November 2009.

The current court case would subject Christian schools, churches, and ministries to federal anti-discrimination laws, which could force Christian schools to employ HIV-positive transgender teachers.

What better way to argue for the nullification of the First Amendment than through the mouth of someone who has already subverted the judicial process?