We all know that the right is none too pleased that the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land. But a right-wing talk show host in Des Moines went several miles over the line last week in criticizing the decision. He claimed that two members of the court’s liberal wing should have recused themselves because they were “liberal Jews.”
Jan Mickelson has been the mid-morning host at WHO in Des Moines since 1988. On September 9, he spewed a long-debunked right-wing urban myth–that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan should have recused themselves from the marriage equality case because they’d officiated at same-sex weddings in the past. This has been debunked several times over; it is well established that recusal only extends to specific details of the case at hand.
But Mickelson crossed a line that no talk show host, regardless of persuasion, should cross. While arguing that any other situation in which a justice had “a vested emotional interest and a vested religious interest” would have demanded recusal, Mickelson said this:
“In this case, they had a religious motivation for moving forward and conducting same-gender marriage: they are both liberal Jews. No, I’m not saying anything bad, this is a correct assessment of their world view.”
Listen here:
Mickelson went on to say that this was no different from attacking conservative Christians for opposing marriage equality on account of their own faith. In his view, people of other faiths should not be “exempt” from being criticized if they use their religion to support marriage equality. There’s just one problem with that–there is no evidence that Ginsburg or Kagan’s faith influenced their views on this issue.
And that’s before we even discuss how the tenor of Mickelson’s comment came very close to being an anti-Semitic dog whistle. Last I checked, anti-Semitism is a third rail in our discourse–or at least, it should be. Can you imagine if a liberal talk show host suggested that Eric Cantor opposed reining in Wall Street because he was a Jew? That host would have rightly been fired as soon as his show went off the air–and possibly during a commercial break. Mickelson should have gotten the same treatment.
Frankly, it’s amazing that Mickelson had room to stick a foot in his mouth. Last month, he suggested that undocumented immigrants living in Iowa should get an ultimatum–leave immediately or become “property of the state of Iowa.” In response, Hy-Vee, the biggest grocery chain in Iowa, asked WHO not to air its ads during Mickelson’s show.
After this screed, you really have to wonder–why is Mickelson even on the air at all? Perhaps we should ask WHO and its owner, iHeartMedia–politely, of course. I know that iHeartMedia is the distributor for, among others, Rush Limbaugh. But you would think it would have some standards.
