Christian conservatives, led by a cabal of wealthy, influential Republicans, have executed a long, drawn out coup that now gives them virtually ironclad control of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the final legal arbiter in our country that protects freedom for us all.

Instead, according to Andrew L. Seidel, an author and attorney who's defended the First Amendment for more than a decade, conservative Christians, through the appointment of the six right-wing justices who now hold a super majority, have turned religious liberty on its head.

In his new book, "American Crusade," Seidel details how conservative Christians have achieved that takeover, how it has affected numerous major decisions, and what can be expected in the future if left unchecked.

Seidel exposes the “Crusaders,” powerful right-wing Christian conservatives who are systematically working to, as he writes, “elevate Christian beliefs above the law and exempt Christians from the law, while disfavoring non-religious and non-Christian citizens who are required to follow the law.”

He issues a stark warning: “The First Amendment is being destroyed. In its place, Crusaders are forging a weapon to ensure their supremacy.”

Questions to Seidel:

MARK: I want to ask you a two part question that is top of mind in America right now. Part 1: Was Roe v Wade correctly decided? Part 2: Almost 50 years later, should it have been sustained on stare decisis grounds?

MARK: Considering the outcome of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, do you think other social justice decisions are at risk? Gay rights, public schools, contraception, for instance? And why doesn’t equal protection or due process apply to these situations?

Bob: In your book, you leave no doubt about the danger of the current Conservative Supreme Court, citing case after case where decisions have been based on religious grounds rather than the law. Can you share just a few of those examples?

Mark: I’m dubious that Ketanji Brown Jackson will have any impact at all. What’s your take and is there anything in the short term that can curb this unchecked supermajority?

Bob: Reports indicate that conservative justices appear ready to end race-conscious admission decisions at colleges and universities. Chief Justice Roberts also has temporarily halted release of Donald Trump’s tax records to a congressional committee. Are these further examples of the influence of right-wing politics on the court?

Bob: Part of the mandate of the 1st Amendment is the separation of church and state. Under the current court, is that in peril?

Mark: I believe that Christian nationalism is alive and well in this country, and it is seeping into the court’s decision-making. Andrew: Don’t you see the court trending toward the religious right’s agenda on a number of issues, especially LGBTQ issues, private school funding, and 1st Amendment Separation of Church and State cases like American Legion v. American Humanist Association?

As to American Legion, as a Jewish guy and a constitutionalist, I find the argument that the cross has taken on “secular meaning” laughable. I agree with Justice Ginsburg, may she rest in peace, who said in her dissenting opinion: The cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith.” Using it as a war memorial doesn’t change that fact. This was PUBLIC land. What’s your view?

Mark: And how about Lemon v Kurtzman? In an 8-1 decision, the high court decided that statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. How do you think the case would be decided today?

Bob: Let’s talk about Masterpiece Cake Shop where the shop refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds, or the Obergefell v Hodges case that permitted same-sex marriage. These were decided differently, obviously. Would today’s court decide Masterpiece the same way and overturn Obergefell? You discuss them in detail in your book.

Mark: In Tandon v Newsom, the current conservative majority even prioritized the religious right over common sense COVID safety measures. What’s your view of that decision?

Mark: Can we talk about the Constitution, itself, for a moment? For instance, what’s your take on the evolution of the 2nd Amendment? How do we go from “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” to you can own military assault rifles?

Mark: And a broader question. I presume you would agree with me that the Constitution was a legal document, a framework for our federal, state, and local laws. It was not meant as a political document, correct? But, it has certainly become one. What do you make of people who I call constitutional hypocrites, who selectively enforce certain constitutional provision, but ignore others. In my view, the pollicization of the court is an example of this-do you agree? I don’t think the framers foresaw these political battles, do you?

Bob: How can we as citizens protect ourselves from the next Dobbs? Only next time it will be a case that brings down marriage equality, access to contraceptives, or changes how we fund schools. How do we stop the madness?

Mark: Last question: You’ve been invited to lecture at a bar association meeting welcoming new lawyers into the profession. What do you tell these fresh young kids about constitutional freedoms, the 1st Amendment, and the separation of church and state? Forget what you learned in law school?