Ten days symposium: The US Constitution and the New Supreme Court Justice- Day 3

Ten days symposium: The US Constitution and the New Supreme Court Justice- Day 3

27/10/20

It's just six days left before US-2020 general election and the republican senate voted almost unanimously to approve Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the senate and few hours later she was sworn in by Justice Thomas at the White House in the presence of President Trump, senators, the media and invited guests. The republican president has now appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices and over two hundred judges to the courts. Professor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a devoted Catholic and a conservative judge who was a clerk under the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The republican decision to proceed with the confirmation process days before the elections and against the standard they set by denying Judge Garland appointment has  angered the liberals and there is threat to change the judicial system once "President Biden" is sworn in in January. The appointment of a pro-life justice to a seat left by pro-choice late liberal Justice Ruth Badar Ginsberg makes it a bitter pill for the democrats who are expecting to win the election according to the unreliable polls. During her confirmation Justice Barrett quoted from Justice Scalia in her statements and answers to the senate judiciary committee meaning that she is also likely to reflect his influence upon her in the future judgements. Why is this even worth commenting on if these current events are just political and judicial moves that have nothing to do with the Christian faith? From my understanding the new justice's faith was questioned during her federal court committee hearings two years ago, some senators and commenters suggested that her faith "the dogma" is an influential one and can bias her future decision making. How does the Catholic interpret the law that is different from Protestants? Does the Catholic "dogma" prohibit her to rule in favour of laws of the state that contradict her private beliefs? Are judges independent from biases of their chosen persuasion? Is it not a slippery slope for the legislature to expect the judiciary to legislate from the benches? Should there a conservative or liberal judge if separation of powers of the three branches of government are strictly respected? What I mean is, if the law defines the meaning of the colours of a traffic light, should there be a difference in the interpretation of the original text which states that the green colour permits a driver to proceed with caution and stop when the red light is on? If the law was that simple, there would no need for deliberations of similarly straightforward case which requires punishment for one who disregards the red light. The complexity is when the legislature failed in their drafting of the law to provide for exceptional circumstances like allowing paramedics to drive on despite the colour of the traffic lights. The conservative judge may by their biases apply the original interpretation of the text and by this othodoxy crucify the paramedics is the penalty for crossing a red light required them to do so. On the contrary, the liberal justices can set aside the original text of the law and legislate from the bench to imply exceptional circumstances and thus create a precedent which by definition becomes the new law formed by judicial branch. This is the problem with infamous cases like Roe v Wade.

Indeed every human being is affected by bias, it is better to acknowledge this and if necessary disregard these tendencies so to err on the side of righteousness. I am reminded of a legal situation that confronted our Saviour Jesus Christ when one who was caught committing adultery was brought to his "court" for judgement remembering that the church law required the guilty one to be stoned but the Roman law prohibited the clergy from making such decisions without a hearing from state authorities. Christ could have easily rejected to hear the case to avoid potential charge of sedition but  also set a precedent that God's law was inferior to State law and vice versa. "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" John 8:3-11.

The above verses are an example set by Christ on how he balanced Common Law and Equity as an example wisdom we need in our lives when we are called to balance the lustreless Law and grace when making judgements. "Calvinism has also had profound effects upon the development of Western Law,and especially upon American law. The Puritans carried forward the Lutheran concept of the sanctity of individual conscience and also, in law, the sanctity of individual will be as reflected in property and contract rights... Seventeenth century Puritans, including men like John Hampden, John Lilburne, Walter Udall, William Penn and others, by their disobedience to English law, laid the foundations for the English and American law of civil rights and civil liberties as expressed in our respective constitutions: freedom of speech and press, free exercise of religion, the privilege against self-incrimination, the independence of the jury from judicial dictation, the right not to be imprisoned without cause, and many other such rights and freedoms. We also owe to Calvinist congregationalism the religious basis of our concepts of social contract and government by consent of the governed" Berman, The Interaction of Law and Religion, 66-67 in Robbins Ecclesiastical Megalomania Pg 22-23.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her confirmation implied that she is an originist who interprets the law from by adhering to it's original interpretation. This is interesting to know that she will only adhere to the doctrine of precedent ( stare decisis)  if that precedent was an original interpretation of the law. This means that Roe v Wade which opened the floodgates of abortion could be regarded as wrongly decided precedent which should be set aside. This is why women pro-choice groups are alarmed by the pro-life "dogma which that lives loudly in her" could influence Judge Barrett to drain their swamp.

Although we may support the drainage of disagreeable swamps by bigoted religionists of our time, will we be able to resist these powers when our own interests and rights are also drained? In Revelation 13 we are told that our civil liberties which were painfully afforded to us by the founding fathers will be repudiated by the feared "dogma living lively" within the Jesuits and their devotees and will correct the heretics even with the pain of death. Of course this US is not Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan with their anti- blasphemy Sharia laws but in chipping away the separation of powers of the State and of Church, we shall witness the horrors we see in those theocratic countries. "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? ...And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" see Revelation 13.

"When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism...By the decree of enforcing the institution of the Papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near" Testimonies for the Church 5:451. 

Tarisai P Ziyambi