Today we give thanks to God for the wisdom and courage of U.S Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito,  Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett for holding that the “Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; [and] the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The syllabus (i.e., summary) in Dobbs v. the Jackson Women’s Health Organization outlines the major arguments addressed by the majority:

• Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.

• Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State.

• Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. … Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.

• [T]he Court cannot allow its decisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns [i.e., stare decisis/precedent]. A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command. If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law.

Writing for the Court, Justice Alito made mincemeat of the lousy arguments proffered in Roe and Casey, but the political invertebrate Chief Justice John Roberts did what he does best. He tried to swim smack dab down the middle of this roaring river. Hard to do without a spine. The political Roberts voted with the majority but refused to overturn Roe and Casey despite numerous leftist legal scholars acknowledging for decades that Roe lacked any grounding in the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Thomas again renewed his quest to revisit “substantive due process” jurisprudence, which he argues “has harmed our country in many ways,” and, therefore, “we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” He shares this view with Justices Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black as well as Robert Bork and many other legal scholars.

Thomas has long argued that because of the “erroneous” nature of substantive due process jurisprudence, “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Those cases addressed, respectively, the purported constitutional right to access contraception, the purported constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy, and the purported constitutional right of two people of the same sex to marry.

To be clear, Thomas’ argument regarding substantive due process jurisprudence has nothing to do with his moral view of contraception, sodomy, or marriage. Rather, he is making an argument about the constitutional basis—or lack thereof—of substantive due process doctrine, which Justice Antonin Scalia too criticized:

The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called “substantive due process”) is in my view judicial usurpation.

Justice Hugo Black was similarly critical of substantive due process doctrine in Griswold:

[T]here is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.

Leftists mock Thomas for his substantive critique of substantive due process mischief. They do so because they fear losing the power of the Court to act as a supreme law-making body. Well, they did fear that while they controlled the Court.

But Thomas’ critique is not a fringe critique, and he may have at least one ally on the Court: Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Now, the arduous work of changing hearts and minds that have been corrupted by nearly fifty years of leftist propaganda becomes even more urgent.

We need to donate more money to crisis pregnancy centers, both to help mothers who are considering abortion and to repair damage from domestic terrorists like Jane’s Revenge that promises violence to organizations that seek to protect children in their mothers’ wombs.

We need to pour money into creative, compelling public service/social media campaigns and the arts in order to elicit support for protecting preborn babies.

We need to elect wise, courageous state leaders who stand boldly for the sanctity of lives that pro-abortion activists deem unworthy of life.

We need to pass fiscal and social policies that end—rather than create—poverty, and we need to create a culture that doesn’t think a solution to poverty is baby sacrifice.

And we need to educate our children in places that teach that humans in their mothers’ wombs are sacred and that neither their developmental status, nor their convenience for others, nor their imperfections grant to their mothers the moral right to have them killed.

And we need to pray ceaselessly for the least of these. We must pray that incipient human lives are able to survive the dangerous waters of their mothers’ wombs.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-Nightmare-of-Roe-Ends.mp3

January 22, 1973 – This is a horrible date that we should all know — the day the horrific decision, Roe v. Wade, was issued and announced. Almost 50 years later and over 63 million lives taken, this drastic decision could finally be overturned.

On May 2, 2022 Politico obtained a leaked draft written by Justice Samuel Alito that contained the majority opinion that would overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

We anticipate that the leaked draft indicating the decision will not change and that very soon we will hear the final decision announced.

Here are some matters for prayer both now and after the decision is made:

1] Let us pray especially for Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. We pray for their physical protection. We pray that all the adversity that they have faced will encourage them to stand more and more with truth against death and deceit.

2] We should pray that Chief Justice John Roberts will stand for the truth. We should also pray for the repentance of those expected to stand against this decision – Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.

3] After the draft decision was leaked there were a number of cases where churches and pro-life pregnancy centers were attacked. Andy Ngô reported at least 15 cases where either churches or pro-life centers were targeted.

We should pray especially against the efforts of a radical, violent group called Jane’s Revenge that has carried out attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers with impunity. On June 15, they released a statement in which they stated the following:

“We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack. We are versatile, we are mercurial, and we answer to no one but ourselves,” and then they stated their threats.

“We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti. Sometimes you will see what we do, and you will know that it is us.

“Sometimes you will think you merely are unlucky, because you cannot see the ways which we interfere in your affairs. But your pointless attempts to control others, and make life more difficult, will not be met passively. Eventually your insurance companies and your financial backers will realize you are a bad investment.”

Jane’s Revenge claims to be responsible for sixteen different attacks.

We know very well that much of our justice system and many elected officials have not taken these attacks seriously. Pray for our government. Pray for your local pregnancy centers. (And perhaps you could help in other ways.) This is a serious time of spiritual warfare spilling over into threats and violence.

4] We pray that many states will take quick action to outlaw legal abortions or at a minimum seek to curtail abortions.

What about states like Illinois that have seen a 25 percent increase in abortions ? We must prayerfully consider how much work remains. We pray and work to see laws changed as well as hearts changed.

5] We pray that the Lord will have mercy on a nation that has been so blessed and yet has so rebelled against God’s truth. One of the most frightening things to consider is what we deserve.

Here are some additional prayer bullet points to petition our God, Yahweh-Nissi, through the name of Jesus in the days ahead:

Thank God

• Praise and thank God for religious and civil liberty that we still enjoy today in the United States. Pray that parents and grandparents teach their children and grandchildren what an amazing gift God has given us in self-government. Pray that future generations would not take these freedoms for granted. May we utilize these freedoms for the spread of the Gospel and for His glory and honor.

• While more and more of our neighbors are choosing to live secular lives, we thank God for Jesus Christ, the Light of the world.

• Thank God for the exceptionalism of our nation.

• Thank God for His countless blessings in our lives, in our families, communities and nation. Thank Him for the trials and challenges that draw us closer to Him. Thank God for the patience, strength and faith to wait out the storm.

• PRAY for revival.

Please Pray

• FOR THOSE IN AUTHORITY: For the next several weeks, please pray for the political leaders listed below. Of course, this includes praying for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and those who serve in their administration.
  • U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico)
  • U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
  • U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
  • U.S. Representative Veronica Escobar (D-Texas)
  • U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
  • State Senator Meg Loughran Cappel (D-Plainfield)
  • State Senator Chapin Rose (R-Champaign)
  • State Representative Janet Yang Rohr (D-Naperville)
  • State Representative Dan Ugaste (R-St. Charles)
  • YOUR local County Board Members

Pray for the Sanctity of Life:

• PRC’s: Lift up all pregnancy resource centers and those diligently reaching out to vulnerable mothers who feel as if abortion is their only option. Please pray for God’s hand of protection on those who work at these ministries, and that any planned attacks would be thwarted.

• ABORTION: Scripture teaches us that the image of God dwells equally in ALL people [Gen. 9:6], yet far too many in our culture believe that killing pre-born human beings is a legitimate choice. Many so-called “progressives” advocate for this under the banner of “Reproductive Rights” for women. Yet these narratives deny God’s truth about the sanctity of life and when it begins. Moreover, we know that God hates the shedding of innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:16-19)  God forgive us!

• Please pray for God’s forgiveness for our culture’s wickedness and complicity in the destruction of human life. Though God commands, “You Shall Not Murder,” we have instead legalized it and subsidized it with our tax dollars, and have failed to treat all human life as sacred to the Lord. We deserve God’s judgment, but please cry out to God for his MERCY on our state and nation. We are without excuse, yet call upon our loving God to cause the fear of the Lord to fall upon our state and nation so that we would no longer turn a blind eye to our sin or our nation’s sin.

• Pray for a softening of hearts and minds. May God give us opportunities to minister to those who are hurting and may our conversations be filled with His grace and love.

• THE CHURCH:  The Christian Church must step up to teach and defend God’s truth regarding the sanctity of life. We will see an increase in abortion trafficking into our state, as people come to abortion facilities in Illinois. The opportunities to be salt and light at prayer vigils, as sidewalk counselors, as friends and neighbors will certainly increase. Pray that we recognize these opportunities and ask God to work through you to help would be mothers and fathers avoid the sin of abortion. Because of our trust and hope in Jesus, we can boldly approach the throne and beg Him to have mercy upon us and use us to save lives and souls.

Pray for Families:

• PARENTS: Pray that God will give us wisdom and the strength to raise godly children. Help us see the challenges we face as opportunities to train our children toward right thinking and right actions. May God help us to focus on teaching our children the Christian faith, to love the Word of God and to seek to do Thy will. Help us to disciple our children.

• GRANDPARENTS: That God would use grandparents to fearlessly proclaim the Word of God regarding sin and God’s love. Pray for their role in the training of their grandchildren and wisdom on how to instill a Biblical worldview.

• FAMILIES AS SALT AND LIGHT: Pray that God would help your family to be faithful in family worship, foster sweet unity and cooperation, and then use your family to spread the truth and light of the Gospel.

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him,
bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered;
and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they
are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will aske
what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified...
~Jesus Christ (John 15:5-8)

Following the unprecedented leak of the entire U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on the controversial abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, morally and emotionally unhinged, pro-human slaughter women and their collaborators became apoplectic. Next, U.S. Senate leftists terrified at the possibility that diverse citizens in diverse states will pass diverse laws to protect prenatal humans began clamoring for the elimination of the filibuster, so they—Senate leftists—can codify human slaughter in federal law. So much for diversity and federalism.

The self-identifying Catholic Joe Biden said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose [to have her offspring offed]. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice [i.e., pro-human slaughter] officials this November.” And yet, Biden is unwilling to wait to see who voters choose or what state levels of government will do. Leftists like Biden don’t care what the great unwashed masses want. Nor do they care what the Constitution says. Leftists want to impose their will, ideology, and desires by any unethical and unconstitutional means they can dream up.

Biden is justified in fearing that states may pass laws to protect incipient lives. In contrast to the leftist claim that most Americans support Roe v. Wade, recent Rasmussen polling shows that most Americans would like to see it overturned:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters would approve of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade …. Forty-five percent (45%) would disapprove of overturning Roe v. Wade ….

…

In his draft opinion, Justice Alito declared that the Roe v. Wade decision “was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters agree with Justice Alito’s statement…. Forty-six percent (46%) disagree with Alito.

Biden and his U.S. Senate co-conspirators want to rob citizens and states of the right to decide whether humans in the womb can be killed by more powerful humans (i.e., oppressors). According to the website “Equal Access to Abortion Everywhere,” the federal law Biden frantically seeks to pass before Dobbs is decided and before Americans can exercise their right to govern themselves would,

eliminate all existing state restrictions including “six-week bans, 20-week bans, mandatory ultrasounds … counseling, waiting periods, and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Abortion without restrictions would be legal in every state throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason if the Women’s Health Protection Act is passed.

In attempting to rationalize the censorship of conservative ideas, “diversity”- and “tolerance”-loving leftists have claimed society has no obligation to tolerate conservative speech on topics related to sexuality because such speech may lead to violence. This raises a thorny question for leftists: Should society tolerate bloodthirsty banshees shrieking in the streets about their right to destroy the bodies of their offspring and threatening the lives of those who oppose human slaughter? Might such banshee speech lead to violence?

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch have had their homes and lives targeted.

Lacie Wooten-Holway, an unneighborly neighbor of Brett Kavanaugh revealed his home address and organized a protest in front of his home, declaring that “We’re about to get doomsday … so I’m not going to be civil to that man at all.”

A Molotov cocktail set ablaze the office of a conservative public policy organization in Wisconsin and graffitied it with the threat, “If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you.” Sounds like a threat of violence to me.

A Catholic church in Fort Collins, Colorado was spraypainted with the words “My body my choice” and the symbol for anarchism.

Three churches in Texas were vandalized.

In an interview with Salon magazine, an anonymous representative of the anti-life group Ruth Sent Us said “that some members of the network have privately discussed not just disrupting Mass but burning the Eucharist.” Might that lead to violence?

Clearly banshee speech may lead to violence, and yet as of this writing, neither the Biden administration nor the DOJ has condemned the doxing of six U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the illegal efforts to influence the decision of these justices, the torching of conservative non-profit organizations, or the protests in front of Supreme Court Justices private homes.

Instead (and as usual), Biden finds this a good time to blame the “Maga crowd”:

What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this Maga crowd is really the most extreme political organization that exists in American history.

This is about a lot more than abortion… What happens if you have a state change the law, saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit?

Biden’s claim is either a bizarre non sequitur or a wildly fallacious slippery slope argument with no causal or logical link between a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Dobbs case and an absurd hypothetical state law banning “LGBTQ” students from the classroom.

Is the “Maga crowd” an organization? Who’s in it? Everyone who voted for Trump? Are all the Americans who voted for Trump members of a political organization more extreme than BLM, Antifa, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, or eco-terrorist organizations?

Perhaps the cognitively impaired Biden isn’t aware that many liberal legal scholars who support abortion argue that nowhere in the text or history of the Constitution can a right to abortion be found, and hence, Roe v. Wade was an atrocious decision.

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) made an equally bizarre statement:

This is 50 years of rights in a leaked opinion where Justice Alito is literally not just taking us back to the 1950s, he’s taking us back to 1850s. He actually cites the fact that abortion was criminalized back when the 14th Amendment was adopted.

If Klobuchar thinks 49 years imparts immunity from being overturned to a lousy U.S. Supreme Court decision, then she must still be enraged about the de facto overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson, which stood legally unmolested for 58 years.

Klobuchar’s disdain for Alito “taking us back to the 1850s” is perplexing. One would expect a member of the U.S. Senate to have deep respect for much that was written in the 1800s and even the 1700s.

California Governor Gavin Newsom tripped all over leftist “logic” when talking about the draft opinion:

If men could get pregnant, this wouldn’t even be a conversation.

That’s both embarrassingly cliché and politically un-woke. Surely, the good leftist Newsom has heard the news from the world of pseudo-science: Men can get pregnant. Or maybe he has heard the news, but he’s caught in the sticky, tangled web of ideological mayhem that leftists have woven to deceive.

For decades, unhinged women committed to child sacrifice have tried to claim that humans in the womb were just clumps of cells or tumor-like masses. When that nonsensical claim failed, they admitted that, sure, the product of conception between two humans is a human but it’s not fully developed, or it’s imperfect, or it will suffer, or it’s parasitic, or it’s father is a criminal, or it’s mother is poor, or it’s mother doesn’t want it, or it’s mother is not ready to care for it. If those arguments were applied consistently to all humans, we would have a murderous society unsafe for every human.

So, then came the next lie: Morally unhinged women proclaimed that sure, womb-dwellers are human, but they’re not persons. But why, inquiring minds wanted to know, are these humans with human DNA, many of whose human body parts are sold to scientists to find cures for human diseases, not persons?

Philosopher Francis Beckwith offers a definition of personhood that abortion cheerleaders will definitely not like:

[W]hat is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. And since the unborn human being has this natural inherent capacity from the moment it comes into existence, she is a person as long as she exists.

…

A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.

Questions of personhood and unalienable rights are metaphysical questions on which there will never be agreement. Rational, reasonable, compassionate people argue that if we can’t agree on something as momentous as when life begins or when a human becomes a person deserving of the right not to be murdered, the prudent and ethical response would be to err on the side of not killing humans that may, indeed, be persons.

But liberals are not concerned about the injustice of killing human fetuses. Liberal concerns are directed toward the self.

Nathanael Blake, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, illuminates the self-serving political philosophy of the secular left:

The liberal project seeks to provide, to the extent possible, freedom from unchosen constraints, duties, and loyalties in life.

This is why liberalism naturally favors a broad welfare state. The purpose of this welfare state is both to protect those who are dependent, and to protect those who do not want to be depended on.

Thus, liberalism professionalizes care from childhood to old age. The animating vision is a society in which everyone is taken care of, but no one has a private obligation to care for anyone else; no one has to sacrifice ambition, career, or personal freedom to care for children or parents or a sick relative.

But this liberal ideal is unrealizable with children, especially those in utero. …

This is why liberals are complaining about “forced birth” — they really are horrified at the idea of an unchosen obligation to care for another person. … Liberalism cannot tolerate that sort of involuntary duty, and so it requires the opt-out of abortion on demand.

Thus, a political philosophy that begins by claiming to protect the weak and dependent, and to liberate us from the unfairness of the givenness of life, ends by asserting an absolute right to take the lives of the weak and dependent — precisely because they are dependent.

Human life developing in the womb can offer nothing but need; to respond to that need with violence is to assail human dependence in its purest form. This bloodshed lays bare how liberalism has become a revolt against our humanity.

It’s also a revolt against God, which explains why leftists who want the freedom to sacrifice their children target Christianity. Jesus teaches us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily. He teaches that “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” He teaches that God is the Author of life who creates the inmost being of children in their mothers’ wombs. And he teaches that every life unjustly snuffed out by fallen humans was fearfully and wonderfully made by God.

Take ACTION: Sponsored by left-wing U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal [D-CT], the Women’s Health Protection Act (S. 4132) would nullify any existing state pro-life laws protecting the life of the unborn, if signed into law. Both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth are co-sponsors of this radical bill which would also force doctors and healthcare workers to violate their consciences. Click HERE to let them know that this legislation is absolutely unacceptable and offensive to you. Urge them to protect innocent pre-born human life.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Schemes-of-Fallen-Humans-to-Destroy-Life.mp3

Read more:

Fact Sheet by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Democrats’ National Abortion Bill Replaces Word ‘Woman’ With ‘Person’ (The Daily Signal)

On January 26th, various news outlets reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed in 1994, planned to announce his retirement. This announcement was followed by multiple reports suggesting that Justice Breyer may have been ushered out by political activists/strategists within the Democratic Party. One report by FoxNews.com claimed that “groups such as Black Lives Matter and Women’s March launched an effort calling for the justice’s retirement.”

With the midterm elections just eight months away and a “red wave” predicted, time was of the essence. U.S. Senate Democrats could not afford to wait to fill the seat occupied by the oldest liberal member of the Court, even if that meant ushering Breyer out before he was ready to go.

Last Friday, President Joe Biden nominated federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill Breyer’s seat. According to background information provided by the White House, Judge Jackson, who currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was born in Washington, D.C. and grew up in Miami, Florida. She earned a BA from Harvard University in 1993 (magna cum laude), and then attended Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 1996. Judge Jackson clerked for a variety of judges after earning her JD, and in 1999 clerked for Justice Breyer. She worked in private practice and then as a public defender.

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Jackson as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009. She was confirmed unanimously for that position by the U.S. Senate in 2010 and served there until she was nominated by President Obama for a position on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was again confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2013. Judge Jackson served on the District Court until 2021, when President Joe Biden nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Senate again confirmed her appointment in 2021 by a 53-44 vote with three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats voting “yea:” Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Judge Jackson is currently visiting Senators as she begins the interview process for the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will commence confirmation hearings. If she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Judge Jackson would be the second youngest justice on the court—behind Justice Amy Coney Barrett—and the first Black woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Of course, President Biden publicly and proudly announced to the nation that the race and gender of his nominee were pre-qualifying conditions for his consideration. (White males need not apply.)

So, what about her judicial philosophy about the U.S. Constitution, the sanctity of life and religious freedom? Well, according to an article by law professor Jonathan Turley,

What is most notable of the statements of support for Judge Jackson is how little is said about her judicial philosophy or approach to the law. The fact is that we have a comparably thin record of opinions in comparison to recent nominees. While she obviously has opinions as a district court judge, there are few opinions that shed light on her judicial philosophy. That is not surprising for a trial judge who issues hundreds of insular decisions on trial issues or outcomes. This is not about the years of experience on the bench, which I have repeatedly noted is a great strength in the nomination. It simply means that we have fewer opinions offering substantive insights into her approach to legal interpretation. The question is whether we will learn substantially more in this confirmation.

We can hope that the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson, which are scheduled for March 21 through 24, will flesh out more about her views on key issues and her judicial philosophy.

Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute has a different perspective. He isn’t waiting to sound the alarm:

In nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden is selecting a judicial activist for the Supreme Court. Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s judicial activism will place the constitutional rights of all Americans in jeopardy.

Other concerns about Judge Jackson’s positions have been raised by our friends at Family Research Council and Family Policy Alliance.

Written by Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr. 

The significance of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case cannot be overstated. Pro-life citizens across the nation were praying fervently for the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they heard oral arguments Wednesday morning.

The law at the center of this case is Mississippi’s late-term abortion ban for pre-born babies 15 weeks gestation and older. Many experts believe that the Court may overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at least in part, returning the issue of abortion back to the states.

Oral arguments went much as one would expect. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and, to a lesser extent, Elena Kagan, all made clear that they thought stare decisis should rule the day because otherwise it would look like the Court caved to public opinion. There was also some talk about reliance interests built up over 50 years.

Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on how a viability rule makes sense in light of the interests supposed to be furthered for women, i.e., making her own decisions and her circumstances. He pointed out more than once that the only issue they granted cert on was whether to continue to adhere to the viability rule and whether a 15-week line could pass constitutional muster, so he might be angling for a middle ground of striking down the viability rule but not totally discarding the undue burden standard of Casey.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett didn’t seem to be following suit, though. Instead, Kavanaugh pointed out that in some of what are now considered the Court’s most important decisions, the Court overruled prior precedent. He seemed to stake out a position that the Court should be “scrupulously neutral” on this issue and leave it to state and federal legislatures. He said that the interests of the mother wanting to abort and of the fetus in living were irreconcilable, which makes this matter so hard and counsels for the Court to stay out of it.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Barrett raised some interesting questions about the purported interests of women on which Roe and Casey based their decisions. Barrett pressed on why laws that allow women to hand over their infants shortly after delivery, thereby terminating all parental responsibilities, do not eliminate talk in the decisions about women controlling their lives.

Thomas pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld a state prosecution for abuse of a pregnant mother for ingesting controlled substances and harming her child. He never got a straight answer to why, if the state could do that if the ingestion was post-viability, it could not also do it if it was pre-viability or whether the Roe/Casey viability line would call for a different result because, if a woman can kill her child pre-viability, why can’t she abuse it.

Near the end of the clinic’s counsel’s argument, she said the common law provided a right to abort early in the pregnancy at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The U.S. Solicitor General in her argument made a similar statement. Justice Samuel Alito jumped on appellee’s counsel, saying that the American Historical Association’s brief admitted that many states prohibited abortion at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, so how could it be considered a fundamental right. He didn’t mention Joseph Dellapenna’s brief, which obliterates these claims about the common law allowing abortion, but it seemed as if Alito was up on the common-law issue. (It is shameful, though, that counsel continue to spout these “myths,” also known as lies, about the common law.)

No direct questions were asked about whether an unborn child is covered by the due process and equal protection guarantees for “any person,” but Mississippi’s counsel, especially in his rebuttal, spoke of the many lives killed on account of Roe and Casey, although his overriding argument was that the matter should be left to the states.

The audio recording of the arguments is available HERE, and the transcript is available HERE.

We recently read a great little sermon illustration in which a young boy asked his father, “Dad, I was watching a TV show about marine biologists. Why do scuba-divers jump backwards into the water?” His father wittily responded, “Because if they jumped forward, they’d still be in the boat!”

Scuba divers jump out of boats to investigate marine life in the coastal waters and oceans of the world. It is a way of visiting another ecosystem on our vast planet. Whether it is sunken wreckage, lost treasure or coral reefs, I can see how these diving excursions are great ways to escape the stresses of daily life.

Yet today, there are many people in our culture, in our families and even in our churches who might be tempted to jump out of the boat when things get stressful, depressing or uncomfortable. Those of us who still live in Illinois understand the added frustration of wicked and foolish political leadership. The temptation to move out of this state and into “calmer, peaceful waters” is very real.

Yet we should consider what Scripture has to say about escaping trials and tribulation. Right before He was arrested, Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. He prayed John 17:14:

“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.”  

Jesus could have easily prayed that God would deliver us out of the troubled waters of our world, but He didn’t. He prayed that we would remain in the world and that we would be protected from the evil one. Why didn’t He pray for our complete rescue? His prayer continues in John 17:18:

“As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”

Our Lord and Savior, the Son of God, prayed that we would remain so we could be on mission in this world for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Yes, our state and our culture is in trouble. But these troubles are a reminder that we are called to be salt and light to a dying world.  David Jeremiah once said, “Today is the day to be a light shining in a dark world, fueled by the joy of the Lord.” May we be that salt and light to a dark and decaying world, all to the glory of God.

PRAYER ALERT

We cannot stress the urgency of your fervent prayers this week as our state lawmakers return to the Capitol for the second half of the Veto Session. There are a number of bad proposals pending in Springfield. Prayer and action are vitally important.

Appeal to God for His Help

• Praise God that many pro-life activists and pastors are headed to Springfield to speak out against the efforts to repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act and the repeal of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Please pray that these activists would be seen and heard by lawmakers. Pray that their presence and dialogue would help them understand the importance of parental rights and conscience rights. (Read more HERE.)

• Pray that our state lawmakers would understand the wisdom in keeping qualified (or limited), immunity for police officers in Illinois. Pray that the anti-police agenda to dismantle, dishearten and make defenseless would fall short.

Abortion

• Pray for the members of the U.S. Supreme Court as they will be hearing arguments regarding significant abortion regulations in Mississippi and Texas. Pray that God would touch the hearts of the nine Justices on the Court. Pray too, as the debate rages, that eyes and ears would be opened to the abortion industry’s murderous barbaric practices.

• Please pray for the last week of this year’s 40 Days for Life campaign, which ends on Saturday, Oct. 30. Pray that many prayer warriors would take advantage of this opportunity to be a silent witness against the murderous practice of “choice.” Pray that workers at these abortuaries would have a change of heart about their work and leave.

• Pray that every leader in our nation would come to realize that these are real human babies in the womb who deserve protection.

• Pray that the agenda of Satan and his wicked disciples to kill pre-born babies in the womb and encourage immoral sexual activities to innocent young children in government schools would be exposed and stopped.

Public School Exit

• Please continue to pray for our Rescuing Our Children initiative to encourage an exodus from government indoctrination centers. Rev. Ceasar LeFlore, our field director for this project, is meeting with pastors throughout the City of Chicago and suburbs and has been getting favorable responses.

• Pray for Illinois Family Institute and our annual banquet which is scheduled for Friday evening. Pray that the event would be a success, and that our keynote speaker, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, would encourage and challenge us to live up to the high calling of our faith in Christ Jesus.

For Those in Authority

For the next several weeks, please pray for the political leaders listed below. Pray that they would seek God’s wisdom when they make decisions that affect the people they work for. Pray that God would turn their hearts to Himself. (Proverbs 21:1)

Of course, this includes praying for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, JB Pritzker and Julia Stratton and those who serve in these administrations. Pray also for our two U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.

Please pray for the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In addition, please pray for the following officials:

• • U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal Bennet (D-Connecticut)
  • U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri)
  • U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)
  • U.S. Representative Peter Aguilar (D-California)
  • U.S. Representative Rick Allen (R-Georgia)
  • State Senator Scott Bennett (D-Champaign)
  • State Senator Terri Bryant (R-Murphysboro)
  • State Representative Lakesia Collins (D-Chicago)
  • State Representative Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur)
  • YOUR local City/Village/Township Officials

A nationwide group of state legislators and attorneys have crafted an amicus (friend of the court) legal brief in support of the State of Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, seeking to overturn the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision.

The Mississippi law being challenged, with a few exceptions, prohibits abortions within the State, including even the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, when modern medicine is still incapable of supporting life outside the womb.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 17^th, granted a hearing on the following question raised by Dobbs: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Of course, we know the truth that no prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional. [1]

This brief contains three great strengths:

• It represents the group who has truly suffered the greatest harm: the States and the People, whose right to justly govern, reserved to them in the 10^th Amendment, has been taken by the Federal Government’s egregious Roe v. Wade decision,

• It represents the opinion of a statistical majority of U.S. citizens and legislators, and

• It affords legislators in the political minority in their own States, such as Illinois, a voice equal to, or possibly greater than, all legislators throughout the nation.

Republican lawmakers in Illinois are severely outnumbered (a “super-minority”) in both the Illinois House (45/118) and Illinois Senate (18/59), and are therefore typically unable to advance (or stop) meaningful (or harmful) legislation.  As friends of the Court, they can now have the same voice as all other legislators.

There are currently 7,383 [2] state legislators in the United States, duly elected by a majority of 168.31 million U.S. voters [3], of whom 3,977 (or 54%) are members of the pro-life, Republican Party, and have been invited to join the brief.

What did Roe really do?  It announced a new right, which removed Legislators’ (and thereby, the People’s) ability to protect unwanted humans from being murdered.

As stated in the brief, “State legislatures exist to protect the health and welfare of their States’ respective citizens.  This includes the creation of standards and regulations that protect the most vulnerable in society.  However, as demonstrated by the Fifth Circuit’s decision below, flawed precedent [4] interferes with this constitutionally delegated duty.”

“Substantive Due Process”: The Court’s Tool of Federal Tyranny Against the States.

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. ~Judges 17:6

Substantive Due Process is the underlying legal concept used in Roe and others to justify the Court’s remaking of the U.S. Constitution to its own liking.

This logically inconsistent concept was invented in law school textbooks in the 1930s and not embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to 1952 [5].

Of course, ordinary citizens and their children, possessing even the most basic grasp of logic, understand by the redundant term “procedural due process,” (Show me a “process” that isn’t “procedural,” and I’ll show you a bridge that is for sale.) that “substantive due process” is merely a cleverly-worded legal oxymoron which enables judges to justify making the law themselves (i.e., Positive Law, or law made by custom or convention, which can be changed as desired by those in power).

Substantive Due Process, as demonstrated by cases such as Roe, opens a wide door for an unelected committee of nine Ivy League lawyers to selectively remove virtually any topic from the political process (i.e., the States and the People) that it, in its great moral wisdom, sees fit.

From the beginning, the Rule of Law in the United States has been “Natural Law,” or existing law that applies consistently to everyone; certain unalienable rights, endowed to all mankind by their Creator (i.e., Jehovah of the Bible).

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He will. ~Proverbs 21:1

Please pray fervently that God would:

1. Continue to strengthen the resolve of the two Justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) who have unwaveringly upheld their oath to support and defend the Constitutional Rule of Law,

2. Give great courage to four Justices (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts) to understand that it is their duty to finally overturn this unlawful decision, and

3. Forcibly turn the hearts of the three Justices (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor) whose previous positions have contributed to the tyrannous legalized murder of tens of millions.

Footnotes

[1]In the 105 years between the ratification of the 14^th Amendment in 1868 and Roe’s 1973 judicial fiat that it was unconstitutional, 46 states prohibited abortion, either entirely or with exceptions.  Illinois passed the 2^nd such law in 1833.  During the 1866-1868 legislative sessions, several states passed criminal abortion laws while the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was circulating among them.  No one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. “That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification.” – Antonin Scalia, dissenting from Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, creating a right to same-sex “marriage”).

[2]https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx

[3]https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registered-voters-in-the-united-states/

[4]I.e., Roe v. Wade.

[5]https://humandefense.com/criminal-abortion-before-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Written by Liberty McArtor

Proponents of court-packing argue that adding more judges to our nation’s judiciary is the magical solution to urgent problems, and even paint the picture that doing so is an act of goodwill. But far from being a necessity, court-packing is a brazen power-grab by one political party to fix the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices or federal judges to get the political results they want.

And when we look at the history of court-packing across the world, there’s no way around it: Court-packing is a dangerous scheme with severe implications that would erase freedom and rights for future generations and destroy America’s constitutional order.

To equip you—and all Americans—in exposing the lie and the radical plan to overthrow America’s court system, here are four common (or rather, bogus) court-packing claims debunked with facts and logic.

1. Myth: The Supreme Court has been stolen.

Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court currently has nine highly qualified, legitimately appointed and confirmed justices. The far Left just doesn’t like some of them.

The reason court-packing advocates say the U.S. Supreme Court was “stolen” is because they disagree with the political party and the president who appointed the latest three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett). For instance, they claimed that Justice Barrett’s confirmation happened too quickly. But as First Liberty President and CEO Kelly Shackelford has noted, justices have been confirmed in the same fashion nearly thirty (30) times. In fact, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Justice Barrett replaced, was confirmed in a similar time frame.

Ironically, stealing the U.S. Supreme Court is exactly what would happen if the coup attempt to add two, four or even six more justices were to succeed.

2. Myth: Court-packing has popular support.

Fact: Court-packing is widely unpopular—and historically has been within both parties. 

Polls conducted in the last few years show the majority of Americans oppose court-packing.

• In 2020, a New York Times-Siena College poll found that fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters opposed packing the U.S. Supreme Court.
  
• In 2019, Rasmussen polls found that only twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans favor packing the U.S> Supreme Court with additional justices.

What’s more, opposition to court-packing is prevalent across the political spectrum.

Here are some quotes from several politicians and prominent figures on both sides of the political aisle, starting with the current president:

• President Joe Biden (D):

In 1983: “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. … But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make.”

In 2020: “I’m not a fan of court packing.”

• Ted Cruz (R-TX)

In 2020: “Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power.”

• Joe Manchin (D-WV)

In 2020: “I want to allay those fears, I want to rest those fears for you right now because when they talk about whether it be packing the courts, or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that.”

• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

In 2020: “I can’t think of a more destabilizing event for America than changing the number of [justices] on the Supreme Court every election cycle, because it becomes a winner take all for the Court.”

• Jon Ossoff (D-GA):

In 2020: “We shouldn’t expand the Supreme Court just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.”

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933 – 2020):

In 2019: “If anything would make the court look partisan…it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

The truth is both parties have long opposed court-packing, and the sudden flip by a select group of elites on the Democratic side on this issue exposes this scheme for what it really is: a barefaced power grab.

3. Myth: Court-packing is a routine procedure.

Fact: Changes to the size of the U.S. Supreme Court are very rare in America’s history, and the few partisan attempts at court-packing have been failures.

Congress has changed the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices only a total of seven times in American history. The radical Left distorts this fact to make you think court-packing is normal. But in nearly 250 years and 120 Congresses, the seven prior changes (many of them due to workloads and the addition of states to the Republic) do not offer a justification for packing the Court today. On the contrary, the seven changes show how rare court-packing is in America. What’s more, the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices hasn’t changed at all since 1869—that’s over 150 years!

4. Myth: Court-packing will save democracy.

Fact: Court packing will crush civil liberties by making the U.S. Supreme Court a partisan tool of whoever holds power.  

Using a baseball metaphor, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts once said of a judge’s role, “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

What would happen if several partisan justices were added to the U.S. Supreme Court—justices who were instructed to “pitch” and “bat” for the team that appointed them? The U.S. Supreme Court would become an extension of the party currently in power. The fundamental principle of the “separation of powers” would be destroyed.

If more and more partisan judges are added to courts every election cycle, those in the minority—people who don’t agree with the current ruling party—would have their freedom squashed under the weight of a rigged judiciary. Civil liberties like religious freedom would have no stable protection.

Far from saving the principles of our democratic republic, court-packing would lead to the demolition of constitutional rights—just like it happened in other nations, such as Venezuela and Argentina.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by James M. Odom, Esq.
Senior Policy Analyst, The Illinois Family Institute

Our founders were so sophisticated in their understanding of religion and civil government, that they secured this critical inalienable right given by the Creator to all mankind, as the very first freedom to be protected by the U.S. Government.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S.A.

This is why the Illinois Family Institute has joined a friend of the court (“amicus”) brief supporting Catholic Social Services in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019), just argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The City of Philadelphia wants same sex relationships to be universally accepted, regardless of religious belief, and has therefore prohibited foster children from being placed with a Catholic organization that has been serving children in this way for 223 years, because their religious practice prevents them from placing children with same-sex couples.  Though, incidentally the organization never actually refused a same-sex placement. They refer them elsewhere.

At the federal level, the courts generally enforce the First Amendment by requiring 1) a compelling government interest, and 2) the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest before allowing a government to infringe Constitutional rights. This is referred to as the strict scrutiny test.

While it has generally been accepted since the ratification of the 14^th Amendment that the federal government would also defend rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution against the actions of State and local governments, the U.S. Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced this protection by ruling that government actions not targeted specifically against religion, or those called “generally applicable,” do not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This has enabled state and local governments to tailor laws to limit the free exercise of religion by simply outlawing religious practices that they dislike, for everyone, rather than just those who are acting based upon their faith. This has resulted in numerous states passing “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws to reinstate the previous level of judicial scrutiny.

Such limitation of religious liberty is exactly what happened in Fulton.

This is also why Illinois churches’ federal lawsuits against being forced to close during the COVID-19 pandemic fell on deaf ears in the federal courts.

With the new Court make-up (already relevant, as it had refused to even hear similar cases prior to the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett), there is a possibility of overturning Employment Division, and reinstating a test which would prevent such government prohibitions of exercising religious faith.

What this case is really all about, is giving government the ability to silence the Church, and thereby God, and the Word of God on issues of right and wrong.

The political left desires to replace the current United States Republican form of government with the political philosophies of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto (referred to more gently as “socialism” by Democrat politicians such as Bernie Sanders).  Removing the Church’s ability to influence the culture’s understanding of right and wrong is a key element needed to effectively marginalize true religion and make it irrelevant.

This is why Democrats appoint activist judges who will re-write the Constitution to suit their contemporary ideology, and why they now desire to continue that practice by adding more judges to the High Court.

Pray with us that our Creator who holds this Court and this Country in His mighty hand, will guide the Court to protect true religion and His Church, the indispensable foundation of this great Nation!

PLEASE PRAY: Pray for God’s mercy on our nation as we await the results of President Trump’s legal challenges to election results. In 2000, it took 37 days to figure out the “hanging chad” dilemma. We must be patient. In the meantime, please pray that any and all corruption would be exposed. 

Please consider a donation to IFI as we stand boldly in the public square.

Still reaching for peak absurdity with ever more zeal, elements of the radical left are now smearing an honest interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and those who support it as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and more. In fact, those are the exact words used by U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to describe originalism — the widely accepted judicial doctrine holding that the words in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted and understood as intended by the authors and ratifiers. The revolutionary view offered by Markey and others like him is a threat to America and every single American, fellow lawmakers warned.

Amid the nasty confirmation fight over U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Markey unleashed vitriolic and hateful comments against her “originalist” view on interpreting the U.S. Constitution. “Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination,” Markey claimed in an October 26 Tweet, essentially smearing as racist, sexist, “homophobic,” and discriminatory ACB and the tens or even hundreds of millions of Americans who believe the words in the Constitution mean what they say. Originalism now joins math, objectivity, individualism, milk, lower taxes, babies, Star Wars, and more in being called “racist” by the far left.

In comments made on the U.S. Senate floor, Senator Markey echoed that bizarre view after noting that Amy Coney Barrett proclaimed that her judicial philosophy was the same as the late Justice Antonin Scalia‘s view, originalism. “As Judge Barrett described so-called originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution’s text to have the meaning it had when the U.S. Constitution was ratified,” Markey said, falsely claiming that various categories of people such as women and homosexuals had “no rights” when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and omitting the fact that the Constitution has been amended repeatedly since then.

Markey’s summary of what originalism means is relatively accurate. The elected representatives who wrote and voted to ratify that governing document delegating “few and defined” powers to the federal government did so with the understanding that the text meant what it said. No sane or sensible person would ever vote to empower a government, with all its dangerous and coercive powers, under a Constitution in which the words had fluid meaning — or no meaning at all. It would be the equivalent of handing that government a blank check with unlimited power over life, liberty, property, and more — something only a fool or a suicidal madman would even consider.

And yet, this is obviously how U.S. Senator Markey and other leftwing extremists seeking control over Americans believe the U.S. Constitution ought to be understood. Common sense and basic decency would dictate that if Sen. Markey and his far-left allies would like to change the U.S. Constitution, they should do so honestly, using the amendment process outlined in the document itself. They could then make their case to the American people. Then, the people, acting through their elected representatives, could decide for themselves whether they wished to change, re-structure, or further empower their federal government with new authorities.

But Markey and others know that Americans would never willingly tolerate many of the changes that “progressives” would like to bring about. And so, like communists and revolutionaries have done for generations, Senator Markey proceeded to accuse originalists of exactly what progressives have been doing for decades. “Originalam — originalism — is just a fancy word for discrimination,” Markey claimed on the U.S. Senate floor. “It has become a hazy smokescreen for judicial activism by so-called conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box.”

Of course, in reality, the exact opposite is true. For instance, much of Markey’s bizarre rant centered on “LGBT” issues and the supposed right to a homosexual so-called “marriage.” And yet, it was only through judicial activism that this mockery of the people’s wishes and God’s design for marriage could be implemented. Indeed, even in California, perhaps the most liberal state in America, voters rejected so-called “gay marriage” when given the opportunity at the ballot box. In states like Alabama, over 8 in 10 voters supported real marriage. Only through the rogue U.S. Supreme Court were “progressives” able to defy the will of the people and impose faux marriage on America. The same is true with legalizing the murder of unborn babies euphemistically referred to as “abortion.”

Fellow U.S. lawmakers expressed outrage and shock over Markey’s words. “Of all the irresponsible and inflammatory statements I’ve heard over the last few weeks, and I’ve heard some doozies, this might well be the worst,” U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), a former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, said on Fox & Friends in response to his Democrat colleague’s accusations. “I hope, expect, and demand that Senator Markey retract his statement. It is irresponsible; he can’t defend that.” Despite having sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, Markey has so far refused to apologize.

Senator Lee, among the most faithful members of the U.S. Congress when it comes to respecting his oath of office, also highlighted the implications of Markey’s dangerous narrative. “If you think about what he is really saying there, Senator Markey has essentially said that our Constitution is racist, and [that] an effort to understand it, understand its words at the time they were written, is itself racist and bigoted,” Lee noted. “I can’t think of a statement that has a greater tendency to undermine the foundation of our constitutional republic.” Perhaps that was the goal.

The reason why Markey and others are so triggered by originalism is clear, too. “They don’t want the courts to be limited to judging institutions; they want them to be institutions of social change, of social policy, they want them to take debatable matters beyond debate and, so, that is why this isn’t satisfying to them,” Lee explained, adding that they want to go far outside the bounds of what the U.S. Constitution allows without having to get the consent of Americans through the amendment process. “Justice Barrett sees the elegant simplicity of the fact that you want judges to interpret the law based on what it says.”

Interestingly, pinned at the top of his Twitter page, Sen. Markey has an article promoting universal dependence on the federal government through monthly payments to every American. The propaganda comes from the fringe leftwing “Jabobin” magazine. That magazine is named after the monstrous revolutionaries known for their “Reign of Terror” during the French Revolution — a murderous orgy of violence that resulted in mass murder, tens of thousands of beheadings, savage persecution of Christians, destruction of civilization, and other bloody horrors from which France never fully recovered.

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. 

We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches and civic groups throughout the state..
Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Well, they dusted off those colorful “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that were so visible at Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018.

Even before Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing on Monday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats were being cheered on by permanently angry women (and maybe some men) dressed in red cloaks with white duckbills extending from their hoods.

This is the uniform of the oppressed women in Hulu’s serialization of Margaret Atwood’s dystopic, anti-Christian novel. If you thought atheist crusader Philip Pullman’s thinly disguised depiction of church authorities as evil in “The Golden Compass” book and movie were bad, Ms. Atwood runs circles around him.  In her 1985 book and TV series, the polygamous men cite Bible verses and treat the women as sex slaves.

Braving the rain on Monday, the demonstrators held signs festooned with messages such as a giant NO! in rainbow colors over “Trump/Pence Must Go!”

This time around in the U.S. Senate star chamber, the Democrats who pretend to honor religious liberty while assailing nominees’ faith think they have a smoking gun. The word “handmaid.”

Mrs. Barrett and her husband have long been members of an ecumenical charismatic Christian group begun in 1971 called People of Praise, based in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and its law school, from which she graduated summa cum laude and taught constitutional law.

Women leaders in the group, including Mrs. Barrett, previously held the title of “handmaid,” which is derived from Jesus’s mother Mary’s own description of herself in Luke 1:38 as “the handmaid of the Lord.”

The group dropped that title in favor of “women’s leader” because “the meaning of this title has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” a spokesman said.

Mrs. Barrett, 48, now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which she was nominated by President Donald J. Trump in 2017.  At that time, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said at a hearing that Mrs. Barrett’s religious beliefs worried her because “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Wow. Talk about open religious bigotry. But it’s OK because the senator is a Democrat, and they get to do this sort of thing. It’s not as if the media would have a problem with it.

Here’s a front-page headline from last Wednesday’s Washington Post:

Barrett long active with insular Christian group: Community preached subservience for women, former members say.

Ah, those “former members.” You can always dig up a dissident or two to make the point you want, unless you’re reporting on Black Lives Matter or the Democratic National Committee, which are pretty much the same thing.

As for People of Praise, here’s more from their own media statement provided to Heavy.com:

A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.

Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.

As the Apostle Paul instructs, and many biblically sound churches teach, men are to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in their own households and they are to love their wives as they love themselves. This is considered scandalous by our cultural commissars.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul writes: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her.” That means laying down your life if necessary.  It’s why when things go bump in the night, the guy should be the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat or the Sig Sauer.

Democrats are terrified of the attractive and articulate Mrs. Barrett, a mother of seven, just as they were threatened by Clarence Thomas, who destroyed their narrative that blacks belong on the leftist plantation.

Mrs. Barrett has impeccable credentials that the U.S. Senate already examined when she was nominated for the appeals seat.  At that time, the “handmaid” reference didn’t get traction, since the TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only debuted in April of that year.

In the meantime, we’ve seen U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) take a page from Bernie Sanders and grill Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo in 2018 about sex and marriage, strongly implying that his traditional Christian views are a form of bigotry. Booker likes to make much of his own Christian faith, which apparently is free of the burden of having to abide by crystal clear biblical principles regarding sex.

Also hewing to “smarter than God” theology is Kamala Harris, who has embraced all things LGBTQ, plus taxpayer-funded abortion and Marxist economics. On December 5, 2019, Harris asked Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

During Monday’s hearing, Mrs. Barrett had to face the likes of Booker, Feinstein and Harris, plus the troupe of “Handmaid” harridans.

After the process is over and Associate Justice Barrett is sworn in, the “ladies” can make further use of their costumes.

After all, Halloween is right around the corner.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com. Follow Robert Knight on is a His website is robertHknight.com.

Illinois’ feckless U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth opposes the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court because Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad sponsored by an Indiana pro-life organization that said,

We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.

In an October 2^nd letter to her Senate colleagues, Duckworth said the pro-life organization whose ad Barrett signed 14 years ago opposes,

a critical step of the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process that gave me my children.

Duckworth conveniently omitted what that critical step is.

Duckworth went on to say in her “Dear Colleague” letter that Barrett is a

Supreme Court nominee who appears to believe that my daughters shouldn’t even exist.

Really? Does Barrett really believe Duckworth’s living breathing daughters shouldn’t exist? If there were technology that allowed doctors to create life in a lab and grow babies in artificial “wombs,” would opposing that technology necessarily entail the belief that children created and gestated like that shouldn’t exist?

Someone might want to clarify to Duckworth that what pro-life supporters oppose is the discarding of any siblings of IVF-created children that their parents—like Duckworth—didn’t want.

Duckworth began her missive the way “progressives” like to address all debates over substantive moral issues: with a heartstrings-tugging “narrative”—a narrative irrelevant to the underlying moral issue she hopes no one will think about as they read her appeal through misty eyes.

She spent 2 ½ paragraphs describing bringing her second baby onto  the floor of the U.S. Senate “swaddled in blankets” with colleagues “cheering … as little Maile Pearl continued to sleep blissfully in my lap.” She quickly switched to describing the “deep knot of dread and anguish in the pit of my stomach” she experienced when hearing that Amy Coney Barrett had been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duckworth experiences dread at the prospect of a woman sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court who believes all lives are of infinite value—including imperfect humans and humans Duckworth views as disposable. Duckworth feels no dread about U.S. Supreme Court Justices who have no qualms about the dismemberment of humans or about chucking humans in an incinerator, but she does experience dread about a woman sitting on the Court who is raising a disabled child and who has adopted two Haitian orphans.

Duckworth appealed particularly to “Republican colleagues who cooed and cuddled” her ten-day-old infant, while never mentioning that she supports the legal right to have ordered the killing of her daughter 11 days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling. In Duckworth’s foolish view, eleven days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling, her daughter was a non-person and deserving of no legal protections.

Worse still, Duckworth believes all Americans should have to pay for the choice of women to order the killing of their offspring up to the day of birth for any or no reason.

Demagogue Duckworth claims that “Judge Barrett’s willingness to associate her name” with an organization that believes that humans are not disposable “is disqualifying and, frankly, insulting to every parent, hopeful parent or would-be parent who has struggled to start a family.”

Duckworth’s claim insults every American who believes the science that the product of conception between two humans is a human and who believes that all humans are of infinite worth. The feelings of other more developed or less “defective” humans about tiny humans in the womb does not abrogate the right of tiny humans to exist. Despite what Duckworth may believe, subjective feelings do not determine either reality or morality.

Duckworth claims to,

fear that, if confirmed to the nation’s highest court, Judge Barrett would be unable to resist the temptation of overturning decades of judicial precedent in an effort to force every American family to adhere to her individual moral code.

Duckworth must focus on “judicial precedent” because nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution can a right to abortion be found.

John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School, former Yale and Harvard law school professor, and former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote,

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the U.S. Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

No matter to Duckworth. She wants what she wants and will use any means to get it.

Although Duckworth isn’t an attorney, surely, she knows that all laws “force” Americans to “adhere to” someone’s moral code. Make no mistake, Duckworth and her pro-feticide collaborators have no problem forcing every American to adhere to their moral code. If they did, they wouldn’t try to force Americans to perform abortions or pay for abortions (not to mention bake cakes for faux-weddings, share locker rooms with opposite-sex persons, or use incorrect pronouns when referring to opposite-sex impersonators).

Desperate to retain laws that reflect the non-existent moral right of women to off their offspring, Duckworth concludes her letter with these patently silly words:

I hope you’ll join me in speaking out for every American family who has struggled with infertility by opposing this confirmation.

Leftists know that Barrett is eminently qualified and morally beyond reproach. They also know that since religious tests for holding office are constitutionally prohibited, they can’t again attack her religious faith as Diane Feinstein once did, so now they will start manufacturing fanciful new justifications for opposing her. Duckworth’s fanciful justification is that Barrett will try use her position on the U.S. Supreme Court to thwart the use of IVF by infertile families. Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to let them know that you support the nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. We must confirm nominees who will uphold the U.S. Constitution’s protections of life and religious liberty.

Amy Coney Barrett is a proven originalist who sees her roles as limited to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. She is the type of judge conservatives have been praying for. Her faithful approach to the U.S. Constitution and her experience on the 7th Circuit federal appeals court make her an outstanding nominee.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Duckworths-Foolish-Attack-on-Amy-Coney-Barrett.mp3

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Written by Calley Mangum

Last Saturday, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett, 48, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since October 2017. While there may be much dissent across political lines over the confirmation of Judge Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, the facts of her extensive qualifications speak for themselves.

Amy Coney Barrett is a married mother of seven children, five biological and two adopted from Haiti. She grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana and graduated from Rhodes College magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in English literature. She then attended Notre Dame Law School, where she was the executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. Barrett graduated summa cum laude in 1997, and she clerked from 1998-99 for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“That is trial by fire,” Barrett said in an interview with The Heritage Foundation. “The way Justice Scalia ran his chambers is we all had to be prepared to discuss all the cases […] Justice Scalia, obviously very quick witted, brilliant, and he didn’t want you to agree with him. He wanted you to say what you thought. And so disagreeing with him as I sometimes did and pushing back with someone like Justice Scalia really taught me a lot.”

After clerking for Justice Scalia, Barrett worked a few years in private practice before returning to Notre Dame Law School in 2002 to teach. She remained at Notre Dame until President Trump nominated her for the 7^th Circuit in 2017. When she was nominated, every clerk who served with Barrett at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998-99 wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recommending Barrett for the 7^th Circuit seat.

During her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett was subjected to continued questions regarding her Catholic faith and its influence on her role as a judge, questions that many argue violated the U.S. Constitution’s No Religious Tests Clause.

“I don’t think that faith should influence the way a judge decides cases at all,” said Barrett in her interview with Heritage. And she said the same to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during her hearing. “Somehow people seem to think that I said the opposite of what I said, but I think that one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and their personal beliefs aside because our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law.”

Barrett’s record while on the 7^th Circuit reflects this dedication to the law, including the U.S. Constitution. (Read Heritage’s article for more details on Barrett’s rulings while on the 7^th Circuit.) Barrett has said her judicial approach falls under “original public meaning originalism,” or that “the meaning of the words at the time they were ratified is the same as their meaning today.”

The confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett in the U.S. Senate are scheduled to start Monday, October 12.

This article was originally published by NCFamily.org.

Written by Rick Claybrook, Esq.

The U.S. Supreme Court fall term begins this month, and, as of now, it does not appear to be as action-packed for religious liberty as this past term. However, at least one important case is in the hopper, and several are in the pipeline.  And, of course, all is overshadowed by the presumed replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

The case in the hopper is Fulton v. Philadelphia, dealing with whether Philadelphia can stop contracting with Catholic Social Services to perform foster care services because CSS refuses to place children with same-sex couples due to its religious beliefs. The case presents many interesting angles: practical, philosophical, personal.

a.) It is set to be argued on November 4.  Will Judge Barrett be confirmed by then?  If not, and there is a 4-4 split, will it be reargued?

b.) One issue presented is whether Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia’s most notorious decision among many religious freedom advocates, should be overruled. Will Judge Barrett, a self-described Scalia acolyte, be inclined to overrule Smith?

c.) Of course, as we argued in our Fulton amicus merits brief, it is also quite possible to decide in favor of CSS without overruling Smith by taking the path of “hybrid” rights, i.e., that more fundamental rights are at stake than just free exercise.

d.) The city in its briefs before the Supreme Court has also shifted the focus of its defense, now principally arguing that there is much less religious freedom when the government is handing out contracts for a function for which it has primary responsibility.

A few petitions filed last term seem to have been held awaiting what the Court does with Smith in Fulton (if anything).  Foremost among them is Arlene’s Flowers (19-333), which involves a Christian florist who refused to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. This case has already been “gvr’d” (granted, vacated, and remanded) once for reconsideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and we argued in our amicus brief in support of the petition that, by requiring the florist to contribute to the ceremony on pain of penalty, she was being unconstitutionally compelled to speak and assemble in a ceremony to which she had religious objection.

Tensions between SOGI discrimination laws and religious freedom are also at play in several other cases in the pipeline. The petition in Patients for Privacy v. Barr (20-62) raises whether a school’s forced inclusion of opposite-sex identifying (“trans”) students in locker rooms violates other children’s bodily privacy rights and associated parental rights. Several lower courts have recently applied Bostock’s reading of sex to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in Title VII (employment) to Title IX (school sports). This issue was specifically reserved by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his Bostock majority opinion, and it would give an interesting read on a freshly minted Justice Barrett.

Several cases are in the pipeline that could raise whether one of Justice Ginsburg’s most notorious decisions, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, should be reconsidered and overruled. That 5-4 decision held that an “all comers” policy at a public university could trump a religious organization’s restrictions on its leadership. Putting to one side that there really is no such thing as a consistently enforced “all comers” policy at any public university (which almost all have fraternities and sororities, for example), the decision has received substantial criticism for violating the association/assembly rights protected by the First Amendment.  A Justice Barrett could provide the vote to overrule this precedent.

Another case that has been to the Court before and may shortly be back is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which involves a Washington state high school firing a football coach because he refused to stop kneeling at the center of the field with head bowed, by himself, after football games. The Court refused to consider the case in a preliminary injunction context, with a concurring opinion expressing sympathy for the coach but saying that the record needed to be further developed. He has now lost again, on a full record, at the Ninth Circuit. If en banc consideration is not granted, it will almost undoubtedly be the subject of another petition at the Court. If granted, it may provide a first opportunity for a Justice Barrett to indicate her reading of the scope of the Establishment Clause and its interplay with the Free Exercise Clause.

Covid 19 has put the Free Exercise Clause to the test in many cases challenging restrictions on in-person religious services.  The decisions so far have been presented in a preliminary injunction context, and the churches have lost, 5-4, with Justice Ginsburg always in the majority, on the issue of whether churches have been treated in a non-discriminatory fashion. Cases will likely be subject to petition soon that are past the preliminary injunction stage and may present other issues. For example, a Romanian Orthodox church just lost in the Seventh Circuit its challenge to Illinois’s 10-person maximum for indoor services, despite its meeting space holding thousands. Is a one-size-fits-all requirement irrational, especially when free exercise rights are involved? And California in many counties has prohibited in-person religious services entirely. Would a confirmed Justice Barrett tip the scales 5-4 in favor of the churches?

Of course, the primary focus on Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearings, whether expressly or implicitly, will be her likely vote on abortion cases. Several cases are in the lower courts that could be the subject of successful petitions during the term, as states have had laws enjoined that, for example, move back the latest gestation date by which abortions can take place and prohibit abortion due to sex or disability. One pending petition (20-93) raises the issue of whether an unborn child is entitled to equal protection, which does not seem likely to be granted.

Until his retirement from his partnership in Crowell & Moring LLP, one of the country’s premier government contracts firms, Rick Claybrook specialized in bid protest and claims litigation. Throughout the 40+ years of his career, Mr. Claybrook has been active in pro bono matters involving religious liberty and life issues. His experiences in this area have been broad and varied, from hearings before a zoning board to defend a small house church to filing multiple amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court and other state and federal appellate and trial courts. For over a decade, he has been a member of the supervising committee of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, which is the advocacy arm of the Christian Legal Society. 

HELP! Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. We need your  financial support to help us reach Illinois voters and promote Christian family values. Please donate today!

Written by Walter Williams

The United States Constitution’s Article 2, Sec. 2, cl. 2, provides that the president of the United States “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett as U.S. Supreme Court justice who will replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Barrett currently serves as United States Circuit judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th Circuit serves the Midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

It is now the U.S. Senate’s job to decide whether to confirm Barrett’s appointment as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. In thinking about the U.S. Senate’s criteria for making their decision, we might ask what is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable answer is to recognize that our U.S. Constitution represents our rules of the game. It dictates what is and is not permissible behavior by government and its citizens. Therefore, a U.S. Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only; namely, that of a referee.

A referee’s job, whether he is a football referee, baseball umpire or a U.S. Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and to ensure that those rules are evenly applied without bias. Do we want a referee or justice to allow empathy to influence their decisions? Let us answer this question using this year’s Super Bowl as an example.

The San Francisco 49ers have played in seven Super Bowls in their franchise history, winning five times. On the other hand, coming into the 2020 game, the Kansas City Chiefs had not won a Super Bowl title in 50 years. In anyone’s book, this is a gross disparity. Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it is like to be a perennial loser, not winning a Super Bowl in five decades? What would you think of a referee whose play calls were guided by empathy or pity? Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the San Francisco 49ers and less stringently against the Chiefs. Would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule? You would probably remind him that it is the league that makes the rules (football law), not referees.

U.S. Supreme Court justices should be umpires or referees, enforcing neutral rules. Here is a somewhat trivial example of a neutral rule from my youth; let us call it Mom’s Rule. On occasion, my sister and I would have lunch in my mother’s absence. Either my younger sister or I would have the job of dividing the last piece of cake or pie. Almost always an argument would ensue about the fairness of the cut. Those arguments ended when Mom came up with a rule: Whoever cuts the cake gives the other person the first choice of the piece to take. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

This is what our society needs — the kind of rules whereby you would be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge. Despite the high stakes of bitterly fought football contests, most games end peaceably, and the winners and losers are civil. It is indeed a miracle of sorts that players with conflicting interests can play a game, agree with the outcome and walk away as good sports. That “miracle” is that it is far easier to reach an understanding about the game’s rules than the game’s outcome. The same conflict-reducing principles should be a part of a civilized society.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
This article was originally published at the Creators Syndicate webpage at creators.com.