By Jay Rogers
Published September 1, 1991
U.S. Circuit Judge Clarence Thomas has been nominated to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas was born in segregated poverty in Georgia in 1948. He was raised by his maternal grandparents. Clarence’s story is one of hard work, honesty, dedication, and the will to achieve anything no matter what the circumstances.
Jet magazine epitomized Thomas’ story: “The hope that he now offers all those who struggle to make something of themselves is his impressive story of the hope that enabled him to rise from poverty to the Supreme Court.”
Judge Thomas described his background in 1987: “God was central. School, discipline, hard work, and knowing right from wrong were of the highest priority.” Thomas now attends a charismatic Episcopal church. From his humble beginnings, his story has been one of a triumph of faith over adversity.
“The reason I became a lawyer,” said Thomas, “was to make sure that minorities, individuals who did not have access to this society, gained access. Now I may differ as to how best to do that, but the objective has always been to include those who have been excluded.”
Thomas’ nomination comes at a time when the Supreme Court appointments have been highly politicized. Our nation has been polarized into two groups:
1. Those who believe that the United States Constitution is law; and should be interpreted according to its original intent.
2. Those who believe that the Constitution is subject to any interpretation and would use it to further their political objectives.
Thomas clearly falls into the first category; his past references to the “natural law” and his commitment to judicial restraint attests to this fact. There is a campaign brewing which seeks to discredit every Court nominee who adheres to the idea of “Original Intent.” But there is something larger at stake here: Who controls the courts? Who controls the United States Constitution? The two political parties of the U.S. are becoming increasingly polarized on this issue.
We are now facing the increasing politicization of our culture which includes our educational institutions and our courts. There are only two sides to this issue. Either the Constitution is fixed and applicable only when the principles laid down by those who ratified the Constitution are adhered to; or, it is a malleable document which can be interpreted by justices to fit the desires of special interest groups.
There is a struggle between these two groups on Constitutional law. It is being waged in the law schools where our future judges are being trained. Many law schools are becoming politicized. Today in the major law schools, the political view of judging – the one which curries the favor of party politics – is clearly ahead. The notion that the Constitution is law has been discredited.
But the political attitudes of university faculty at these law schools and those of the American public have never been further apart. This led William Buckley to write: “I would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty.” The professors of these law schools are urging courts on toward greater liberalization in interpreting the Constitution without regard to its historical meaning.
As a consequence, the Supreme Court has approved reverse racial discrimination under a statute which clearly forbids it; they have managed to find a Constitutional “right to abortion” without clearly explaining how they found this idea; they have come within one vote of finding a Constitutional right of homosexual conduct. For a time the Supreme Court even abolished the death penalty, although the Constitution explicitly assumes that the death penalty is available to a legislature should they care to use it.
The point to be made here is that the Constitution does not require that anyone be politically opposed to any of these rulings, but that these are political questions – and should be for the people and their political representatives to ponder and decide – and not for judges.
The underlying issue here has to do with individual liberty. When the courts depart from Constitutional statutes to create new rights, they subtract from individual liberty and never add to it. Among our Constitutional freedoms is the right to govern ourselves democratically (ie; only through individual vote and elected representatives) – unless the Constitution contradicts public opinion.
If a situation arises in which the Constitution is out of sync with public opinion, then the American people may amend the Constitution or even do away with it. However, this is a decision for the American people themselves and not for appointed Supreme Court Justices.
This is the underlying nature of the battle over the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the public campaign has been masked by a blitz of negative advertising against Judge Thomas on radio, television, newspapers, and phone banks. This campaign has consisted chiefly of falsehoods and misconstrued actions and statements by Thomas.
Those who would politicize the Supreme Court (university law professors and liberal Democrats) have made the claim that constructionists – such as Judge Thomas – are “outside the mainstream” of American politics. To the contrary, it is those who seek to define the American mainstream who would politicize the Supreme Court. These same people stand even more to lose if the Supreme Court were politicized to the right – rather than toward their leftist goals.
Clarence Thomas represents a man who has every reason to support minority rights and many other liberal causes. Yet Thomas understands that the role of a Judge is to interpret the law (namely, the U.S. Constitution) and defend the rights outlined therein. But a Judge’s role is never to legislate; this belongs to the people and their democratically elected representatives.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of appointing a conservative African-American to the Supreme Court has been the numerous undeserved slurs which have lambasted Judge Thomas. His otherwise exemplary character has been besmirched by ignorance and unqualified criticism.
Patricia Ireland, Executive Vice President of the National Organization of Women, fearing that Thomas’ nomination would overturn the 1973 ruling on Roe vs. Wade, exclaimed: “We’re going to Bork him!” – referring to the defeat of Judge Robert Bork in 1987.
Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder, in an equally reprehensible attack, questioned Thomas’ qualifications by saying: “The question is: How much allegiance is there to the Pope?” Although he once attended a Catholic elementary school, Thomas is an Episcopalian.
Editor’s Note: As of the printing of this article, we believed that Judge Thomas would receive a positive recommendation by the Senate Judiciary committee, and later the required confirmation vote by the Senate. However, we understood that it was possible (knowing the highly politicized nature of recent Court appointments) that Thomas would be rejected.
We would then look to a battle of ideas which would be extended into the 1992 elections. This would be an unfortunate development for the Democratic Party: if Democratic Senators oppose Thomas, they would run the risk of seeming anti-Black and would lose popular support. The Bush administration would nevertheless appoint a strict constructionist to the Court bench before the 1992 election – whether the Judge be Black, Hispanic, Asian, White, male or female. The confirmation hearings will be a triumph for the Constitutional rights of all people according to a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Forerunner - Home » The Forerunner Newspaper » National Events
Your comments are welcome!
High Quality Paperback — 219 pages
Foundations in Biblical Orthodoxy
Driving down a country road sometime, you might see a church with a sign proudly proclaiming: “No book but the Bible — No creed but Christ.” The problem with this statement is that the word creed (from the Latin: credo) simply means “belief.” All Christians have beliefs, regardless of whether they are written.
Yet a single book containing the actual texts of the most important creeds of the early Church will not often be found. Out of the multitude of works on the evangelical Christian book market today, those dealing with the creeds of the Church are scarce.
Why Creeds and Confessions? provides a foundation of biblical orthodoxy as a defense against the false and truly heretical doctrines advanced by the spirit of this age.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“Here I stand … I can do no other!”
With these immortal words, an unknown German monk sparked a spiritual revolution that changed the world.
The dramatic classic film of Martin Luther’s life was released in theaters worldwide in the 1950s and was nominated for two Oscars. A magnificent depiction of Luther and the forces at work in the surrounding society that resulted in his historic reform efforts, this film traces Luther’s life from a guilt-burdened monk to his eventual break with the Roman Catholic Church.
Running time: 105 minutes
Special offer: Order 5 or more for $5 each.
Watch a clip from Martin Luther.
$9.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
High Quality Paperback — 200 pages
A Reasonable Response to Christian Postmodernism
Includes a response to the book Christian Jihad by Colonel V. Doner
The title of this book is a misnomer. In reality, I am not trying to get anyone to shut up, but rather to provoke a discussion. This book is a warning about the philosophy of “Christian postmodernism” and the threat that it poses not only to Christian orthodoxy, but to the peace and prosperity our culture as well. The purpose is to equip the reader with some basic principles that can be used to refute their arguments.
Part 1 is a response to some of the recent writings by Frank Schaeffer, the son of the late Francis Schaeffer. This was originally written as a defense against Frank’s attacks on pro-life street activism – a movement that his father helped bring into being through his books, A Christian Manifesto, How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? These works have impacted literally hundreds of thousands of Christian activists.
Part 2 is a response to Colonel Doner and his book, Christian Jihad: Neo-Fundamentalists and the Polarization of America. Doner was one of the key architects of the Christian Right that emerged in the 1980s, who now represents the disillusionment and defection many Christian activists experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still great hope for America to be reformed according to biblical principles. As a new generation is emerging, it is important to recognize the mistakes that Christian activists have made in the past even while holding to a vision for the future.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“Give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry’s famous declaration not only helped launch the War for Independence, it also perfectly summarized the mindset that gave birth to, and sustained, the unprecedented experiment in Christian liberty that was America.
The freedom our Founders envisioned was not freedom from suffering, want, or hard work. Nor was it freedom to indulge every appetite or whim without restraint—that would merely be servitude to a different master. No, the Founders’ passion was to live free before God, unfettered by the chains of autocracy, shackles that slowly but inexorably bind men when the governments they fashion fail to recognize and uphold freedom’s singular, foundational truth: that all men are created in the image of God, and are thereby co-equally endowed with the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This presentation is a similar call, not to one but many. By reintroducing the principles of freedom that gave birth to America, it is our prayer that Jesus, the true and only ruler over the nations, will once again be our acknowledged Sovereign, that we may again know and exult in the great truth that “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).
Welcome to the Second American Revolution!
This DVD features “Liberty: The Model of Christian Liberty” along with “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations.” Bonus features include a humorous but instructive collection of campaign ads and Eric Holmberg’s controversial YouTube challenge concerning Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Foundations in Biblical Eschatology
By Jay Rogers, Larry Waugh, Rodney Stortz, Joseph Meiring. High quality paperback, 167 pages.
All Christians believe that their great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will one day return. Although we cannot know the exact time of His return, what exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of the signs of His coming (Mat. 24)? How are we to interpret the prophecies in Isaiah regarding the time when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:19)? Should we expect a time of great tribulation and apostasy or revival and reformation before the Lord returns? Is the devil bound now, and are the saints reigning with Christ? Did you know that there are four hermeneutical approaches to the book of Daniel and Revelation?
These and many more questions are dealt with by four authors as they present the four views on the millennium. Each view is then critiqued by the other three authors.
$12.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)