March 6, 2021 | Karen Hardin, IFA Contributing Writer
Gary Bauer of American Values says he can list a number of justices who have drifted Left – but not one that has gone the other way. Why is that?
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is one of the most obvious examples. In the last two to three years he has completely reversed his stand on some decisions from what he originally said and how he voted previously. That should concern us because the law hasn’t changed. He has.
Senator Ted Cruz had his own opinion. “I actually think much of what is driving it is, I think, John despises Donald Trump,” he told CBN. “I think it’s personal.”
According to that same report, Gary Bauer of American Values “hopes Sen. Cruz is wrong but says it’s as good an explanation as any other for the bizarre drift of Justice Roberts.”
“‘It would be a terrible comment about Chief Justice Roberts if he was making decisions based on a personal dislike of President Trump,’ Bauer observed, “and, of course, the worrisome thing would be if there are disputes related to the election.’”
As we know, there were disputes related to the election. After numerous state courts abdicated their role to review the evidence of election irregularities, they passed their duty to the highest court in the land. With the recent appointments of conservative justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, conservative voters were hopeful the evidence would finally be reviewed. Since the issue affects every American citizen and all future elections, it is shocking that it was turned down without review. Even more surprising was that these two recently appointed conservative justices sided with liberal justices without explanation.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a forceful rebuke in his dissent. “One wonders what the Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas stated as he voiced the same question most conservative voters also ask.
You can send a message to thanks to Justice Thomas–click HERE and follow the prompts.
Their refusal to consider this important case stirs the question: Is there any hope for justice in America? And why are we seeing a pattern of Republican-appointed justices voting with the liberal bloc of the Court?
There are several reasons which I will outline: the Greenhouse Effect, the Whitehouse Effect and who is shaping what the justices receive.
The Greenhouse Effect received its name from former New York Times legal reporter Linda Greenhouse. In 1992, Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals described Greenhouse’s impact on the High Court.
According to the Wall Street Journal article, “She applied a carrot-and-stick approach to the Justices in her coverage of Court decisions depending on whether they pleased or offended her political preferences. Justices are human and want to be admired, and over time the Greenhouse Effect influenced John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to move left.”
Although Greenhouse is no longer at the New York Times, the effect remains in place as liberal mainstream media outlets lend the weight of approval through the articles they publish. They work to shift public opinion and to applaud justices who lean Left.
Then there is the more recent Whitehouse Effect. In August 2019, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse signed and filed an Amicus Brief in the U.S. Supreme Court that threatened the Justices with future court-packing if they didn’t vote his way on a 2nd Amendment case.
We see that threatened restructuring now underway. Under the Biden administration, the nine-member, conservative majority court may undergo radical change if they “pack the court” and shift the balance. By adding a provision to add new members, it allows the current Administration to appoint new justices, all with liberal judicial views in step with the progressive agenda.
It was announced almost immediately after Biden took office that a special commission was being put together which would make good on the Democrat Party goal of unmaking the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
“The President remains committed to an expert study of the role and debate over reform of the court and will have more to say in the coming weeks,” a White House statement on the creation of the commission read.
The commission plans to share their report in 180 days which projects that the Democrat-led commission may add as many as six new liberal justices.
Yet perhaps our greatest concern should be who is shaping the information that the Supreme Court Justices actually receive. Due to the high number of cases sent to the Supreme Court each year, there is no way the justices can read every single case. As a result, each justice has between four to six clerks, usually 20-30 year old recent law school graduates, to assist in this endeavor. The concern is when we realize that all have graduated from Left-leaning schools.
It is the clerks who are first given the cases to read and summarize for the justices. At this stage, because the case would first go through the clerk’s political filter, their summary could cause a justice to either take or reject a case—or frame how they will respond. When first appointed, Justice Kavanaugh said he would read his own cases to avoid this conflict. This is likely one reason Justice Thomas tries to hire clerks from a more diverse group of law schools than just the Ivy Leagues. You can learn more about this from the wonderful documentary about his life–Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.
What is the Role of the Supreme Court Justices?
Former Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, often reminded the Court they were to interpret the law, not make it. He was one of the strongest proponents of the Constitution to uphold the laws based on how it was written, not to revise it as we have seen happen in recent years. On the other hand, liberal-leaning justices feel their job is to interpret the Constitution not as it was written, but how they feel it applies to society today.
The Federalist Society wrote their concern about the proper role of a judge, “To let judges proclaim that the law means what it ought to mean, rather than what it says, is not only unconstitutional but also unwise. Justice Scalia challenged those who argued that the courts, especially the Supreme Court, should revise (that is, change) the Constitution to keep it up to date as a “living” document. Why, as a matter of institutional competence, would we entrust the Supreme Court with keeping the Constitution up to date?”
The action to make the Constitution a changeable/living document was defended in a Huffington Post article which reveals the liberal mindset that judges shouldn’t apply the Constitution as the foundation for their decisions, but they must apply “empathy” to it. That means to reinterpret the laws as they feel decisions should be made and applied to 21st century issues.
According to the article, “This does not mean judges are free to make up the law as they go along. But it does mean that constitutional law is not a mechanical exercise of just ‘applying the law.’”
Does that last statement sound like backpeddling? Because it is. It suggests we throw out the law to embrace empathy and any perceived changes deemed necessary because we are now in the 21st century. But doesn’t that invalidate the purpose of the law?
Remember, the Supreme Court isn’t to make laws…it is to support and uphold the law. According to US Courts.gov, “As the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it is to set appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.”
Sadly, that isn’t what has been happening. If it were, the Court would have reviewed the evidence regarding the election, which impacts the rights of every American citizen? And why did several of the conservative justices defer to liberals rather than to the law?
Perhaps another reason conservative judges vote liberal is because of threats made to those who don’t toe the liberal line. For example, last year, Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY-D) threatened conservative Supreme Court justices when the Supreme Court was considering a case regarding abortion rights: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer was not disciplined or reprimanded. He later denied this was a threat. But the words speak for themselves as does the passion in which they were spoken.
Why do Republican-appointed justices drift to liberal decisions? I have proposed some reasons why. Clearly, Supreme Court justices face pressures of all kinds, some we know and some we have no way of knowing. What do we know is that the pressures are real and our prayers are desperately needed.
Lord, we ask for wisdom, righteousness, and justice in our land. We pray for our Supreme Court justices, all federal judges, and all justices and judges in state courts. We pray that they will make judgments with wisdom, according to the law, not based on their own determinations. We pray that the rewriting of laws would stop. We pray that legislating from the bench would stop. We pray that re-interpreting the Constitution would stop. We pray for protection for judges and justices, that threats of violence would be exposed and dealt with accordingly. We pray for judges and justices to have the courage to do what is right and just.
We ask that You would restore our judges and leaders as in days of old, our rulers as at the beginning (Is 1:26) and that they would rule according to the Constitution. Lord, You see how they are working to change the rules once again to pack the Courts and gain control. We ask for Your intervention so that justice can again prevail.
How are you led to pray for the Supreme Court? Share in the comments . . .
Karen Hardin is the author “INFECTED: How to Stop the Global Spread of Rage, Deception and Insanity” To order click here. She is a literary agent, author, and intercessor. Her work has appeared in USA Today, World Net Daily, Intercessors for America, Charisma, CBN.com, The Elijah List, etc. She is also co-founder of the City-by-City prayer movement to save our nation. For additional information on her ministry, business or to sign up for her prophetic blog go to: www.karenhardin.com or you can contact her at www.prioritypr.org.