President Obama made his choice today to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. That choice is Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Her possible confirmation will place her as the third woman in the Supreme Court and the first Hispanic.
When President Obama was Senator Obama he commented on the significance of a SCJ and why he could not vote for Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings. His comments below are startling, especially since President Obama used to teach ConLaw at the University of Chicago:
"[W]hile adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.
In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
Did you pick up on this....what is in the judge's heart....the depth and breadth of one's empathy?
This is the criteria for his pick and all future picks to place judges throughout our country and even for the Supreme Court.
Now I'm personally new to this nomination process for our country, but President Obama's standard for his picks is disturbing. To say that he wants someone to uphold the constitution, but at the same time have someone who is empathetic, is, to say the least, a conflict in terms and philosophy. A judge cannot be both a strict adherent to the law and apply personal feelings toward the plaintiff. As a former White House staff has said, that to try and accomplish this would be an attempt to right a wrong that the law would not allow you to do.
Simply put, a judge could hear all sides of a case and understand how the rule of law would apply and if the law would go against the plaintiff, they then could go against the rule of law, because they are empathetic to the plaintiff. Basically, the rule of law (the Constitution) can be superseded by a judge, if the judge feels in his or her own heart that the plaintiff has been disenfranchised in society. Implication....there would be no rule of law!
Now the reason for this post is not for me to scream from the rooftop that I'm surprised at President Obama's pick or his standard of picking, he's a liberal politician at best and possibly a secular humanist at worst and therefore he is going to implement his political philosophy. The reason for this post is I wanted to draw some connections between this process and how this is taking place inside some of our churches today.
We can start with the implication that there is hardly a rule of 'faith' in some churches across the land. The reason for this can be worked backwards from the story above. We see the implication of churches all over 'superseding' the rule of faith (the Bible) because many have become empathetic to the disenfranchised 'unchurched person'. They are empathetic because they are attempting to understand them and even trying to become just like them. Therefore, we have no rule of faith; all we have are churches that are attempting to be 'flattering' to those outside the church, who they feel are needing to be 'encouraged' and 'assisted' in life. So we pick pastors, teachers, and leaders who will give this kind of attention and leadership in many of these churches.
The true gospel is being compromised within this kind of philosophy of ministry. They are tickling the ears not just of their congregation, but those outside the congregation. They are trying to speak to people who are not even present....well maybe they are actually present. Because they no longer embrace a regenerate church membership, maybe they are actually talking to those outside the church every Sunday morning.
As I have said before on topics like this, 'this is not license for us to go self-righteous, but should break our hearts and cause us to fall on our faces and plead with God to redeem all these churches and leaders who are pushing for this kind of ministry. We should do what Paul exhorts Timothy to do...."Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you."
If we do not pay close attention to the way we live, our teaching and our doctrine, what would the implication be....
Implication.....the disenfranchised, unchurched individual becomes the new 'rule of faith', which is no rule of faith at all!
No comments:
Post a Comment