Participants:
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI200491B
|
00:01 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:02 Before the break with guest, Pati Lawrence, 00:04 we were getting into the real weeds 00:07 of what the COVID emergency might mean 00:11 for religious liberty in the world 00:12 but particularly in the United States. 00:16 Let's get a more particular, 00:17 not so much about COVID 00:19 but what's happening now. 00:20 In another program, 00:22 we spoke about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 00:25 recently passed. 00:27 You and I had some involvement in trying to invite her 00:31 and get a letter through to her to invite her, 00:34 to speak at our liberty dinner. 00:35 It couldn't work. She was already quite ill. 00:37 I think that was what was really going on. 00:38 You did receive a response from her? 00:40 There was some response. It's good. 00:42 And, you know, I don't presume that 00:44 every time you get a letter from a person 00:46 that they directly wrote it, 00:48 even if it's under their signature, 00:49 I do have a letter from President Clinton 00:54 that I think he signed 00:56 because my contact was one of his... 00:59 Well, not one of his, his domestic policy advisor 01:02 that was a good friend from Little Rock, 01:04 and her daughter and Chelsea were at school together. 01:08 So I think he said in the letter, 01:10 you know, I hear from this woman, 01:11 I wouldn't know, you know, good things, and da, da... 01:14 But even then you don't really know. 01:17 Right. 01:18 But at least it comes to you officially. 01:20 But Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. 01:23 And of course, 01:25 there's a shakeup on the Supreme court. 01:27 What do you think about all this? 01:30 Talk about loading it up with, in this case, 01:33 conservatives versus liberals and what their agenda might be, 01:36 not just on abortion, on defending religious liberty, 01:39 they say it a lot, but it often means a carve-out 01:42 for a certain religious view, 01:44 which is not quite religious liberty. 01:46 For me, it's an entitlement for a religious viewpoint. 01:50 Do you think this is important or is it a storm in a teacup? 01:54 I think it's important. 01:55 I don't follow, 01:56 and I should more follow a lot more current events 01:59 and listen to different opinions 02:00 and different facts, and I don't, 02:02 but what I think is going to happen is 02:04 it is going to lean more towards religious liberties 02:07 for an entitled few. 02:09 I really believe that. 02:11 I think the Sabbath-keepers, 02:13 and we're not the only Sabbath-keeping church 02:14 here in America. 02:16 There's many faiths that are Sabbath keepers. 02:17 I've built a wonderful relationship 02:19 with Seventh Day Baptists. 02:21 I know there are some, 02:22 I believe they're called ministries for Christ, 02:24 and they're out there on Sundays 02:26 asking for money 02:28 at different markets and stores, 02:29 and they're Sunday keepers. 02:30 I think we may see restrictions coming our way even more. 02:35 I think we will, 02:37 but will they come from the Supreme court? 02:38 That's the big question. 02:40 Well, that is the highest court in the land 02:42 when decisions are made 02:43 if a case has to go to the Supreme court. 02:46 Well, none of them have to, 02:48 you know, what happens is they work up 02:50 through the appeals system 02:52 till they get to the highest court. 02:54 Many... 02:55 Well, I shouldn't say many 02:56 but quite a few cases make it there. 02:58 And of the cases that rise to that level, 03:01 the court decides which ones they'll take. 03:02 They don't even look at all 03:04 the ones that get to that level. 03:07 So they choose them usually, 03:08 as we choose within our church to... 03:11 We have limited resources 03:13 and not every case of Sabbath accommodation 03:16 gets the full treatment. 03:17 We decide which ones, 03:19 not only a winnable but which ones in winning, 03:22 we might set a precedence. 03:24 You know, that there's a payoff beyond that 03:26 the Supreme court looks at them for the same reason, I think. 03:29 It's not just to settle that 03:30 some of them are very obscure little cases, 03:32 but the court often sees that in settling that 03:35 they establish a larger principle 03:37 or re-establish a larger principle. 03:39 But what I... 03:40 What troubles me, 03:42 and I listen to a lot of the news 03:43 and a lot of the claims in this case, 03:44 by conservatives, even religious conservatives, 03:47 they're operating on a flawed assumption 03:49 in my view. 03:51 They assume the judges can be found 03:54 who are inherently biased. 03:57 Now there are biased judges. 04:00 But to make that automatic assumption, 04:02 I think is to domain the justices 04:06 whether they're so-called conservatives 04:09 or liberals, 04:11 you want to get competent people 04:12 who know the law 04:14 and can analyze it and arrive at the decision, 04:16 and you have a whole slew of them. 04:18 And I have seen almost no evidence 04:21 that when they get on the court, 04:22 they automatically reflexively try to find an answer 04:26 that answers their bias. 04:28 So do you believe... 04:29 So then I'm thinking 04:30 because there's a lot of talk that they're Catholic. 04:33 A lot of them are Catholic. 04:35 If they are practicing devout Catholics, 04:39 just as we use our moral values 04:41 as a compass to how we make decisions 04:43 and or take a stand. 04:45 So that's why I'm thinking if they are devout Catholics 04:48 or if they're... 04:49 Not automatically a negative. 04:51 You would hope that as a Catholic 04:53 or a evangelical Christian or Jewish person 04:57 that in a basic morality would motivate them. 05:02 But as a jurist who trained in the law, 05:06 they're supposed to interpret the law 05:08 and look at it on its own merits 05:10 and human being cannot quite divorce, 05:13 their motivating dynamic from that, 05:18 but it's not chose... 05:19 It's not supposed to be decided. 05:22 And I don't even see how it could be 05:23 just on your reflex opinion. 05:25 Like if you, 05:27 as a Supreme court judge wanted a Sunday law, 05:30 you would then have to do 05:31 what grade school kids do in their papers. 05:34 You would have to then go cherry picking in the law 05:36 to find something, 05:37 to defend that rather than research it 05:39 and let the facts guide you. 05:41 And I don't think 05:42 they would easily get away with it 05:44 because they're with other justices 05:45 who are studying... 05:46 They have huge law libraries 05:48 where they go and look at all the precedents 05:49 and so on. 05:51 And even if you wanted to, 05:52 you'd have to find the precedents, 05:54 you would have to find a decent legal basis 05:57 to under good your radical biased view. 06:02 Like the other day did... 06:03 Recently, I did a program in religious liberty on 06:06 and read one of my editorials on stare decisis. 06:09 I think, I don't even know 06:11 if that's the right pronunciation. 06:12 It's a Latin term 06:14 that the judiciary have to follow. 06:16 It's called established law. 06:18 It's a Roman concept 06:19 that you don't lightly overturn that, 06:22 which has been decided. 06:25 And I know some of these radical religionists 06:29 at the moment 06:30 and conservatives have 120 cases. 06:32 I've seen the number 06:34 that they want undone on the court. 06:35 Not that easy 06:37 if they were done correctly 06:40 and with judicial gravity at the time, 06:45 just because you disagree with it, 06:46 you can't just put your judges there 06:50 and expect that they will then unravel it. 06:52 They have to get a good legal reasoning. 06:55 Well, let me ask you something. 06:56 Okay, legal reasoning. 06:57 But let's say the Supreme court was made up 06:59 the majority Seventh-day Adventists. 07:01 Okay. 07:02 So and a case comes in and this may be completely... 07:04 'Cause I'm not that versed in the Supreme court 07:08 and how it works in law and politics. 07:10 I'm more than mingler in the community 07:12 that moves so to speak. 07:14 So I'm coming at this just completely as a layperson. 07:17 But if the Supreme court were made up of mostly. 07:19 Seventh-day Adventists and a court comes, 07:21 I know for me, I would first look at it. 07:24 I mean, isn't that there's 07:26 what belongs to Caesar give to Caesar, 07:27 what belongs to God give to God, 07:30 our moral compass, our moral values, 07:32 would you choose more on the side of law 07:34 or on God's law? 07:35 But, you know, the people think that 07:38 the justice has sit there in a judicial seat 07:40 and they raise their hand. 07:43 Well, like the Romans either up or down... 07:45 That's how I probably look at it. 07:46 No, they have to do. 07:47 They have law clerks. 07:49 They have to find a legal rationale for it. 07:50 But they have... 07:52 They do have the last word to give. 07:53 So if you were as in Supreme court, 07:54 would you look at... 07:56 Well, there's no question if the majority, 07:58 which has been, were Roman Catholic, 08:00 or if they were Adventists, 08:02 you could expect a certain undercurrent 08:04 that would bias them toward that way. 08:07 But they still have to suspend that 08:12 and it binds to the legal responsibility. 08:14 And they would then have to play games 08:17 with their research 08:18 to say that why it should be. 08:20 So it's not that easily done. 08:22 And further, if you look at the record, 08:25 I'm surprised that 08:26 the factions that keep putting their magic person in there, 08:31 they don't acknowledge it. 08:32 There's not a very strong correspondence 08:35 between the faction that puts someone on 08:36 and what they expect them to do 08:38 and what they follow through on. 08:40 And the reason not is because by and large, 08:42 they are responsible judges. 08:45 They follow the law. 08:47 I remember hearing Justice Scalia, he's dead now, 08:49 but I heard him in person lecture a few times. 08:51 And he even said, he says, 08:53 you don't have to worry about me 08:55 because he would say radical stuff. 08:56 He says, I'm constrained by my own responsibilities. 09:01 I have to follow the law or precedent 09:03 and all this sort of stuff. 09:06 He had a position that I think was a bit silly 09:09 but still held by some as originalism 09:12 but often like someone 09:14 that tries to find out the mind of Moses 09:18 when he transcribed the laws, 09:19 the little down, you don't know the mind of Moses 09:22 other than what he said. 09:24 So it's sort of a little bit of play-acting 09:26 or role-playing. 09:28 But beyond that, the judges follow the law. 09:30 And I think it's reassuring for the moment 09:33 when we get to where the Supreme court 09:35 can be manipulated easily 09:37 and swung by affection 09:40 it's all over. 09:42 The Bible says at the end of time, 09:44 when a society collapses, the judges corrupt... 09:47 When the judges are corrupt, there's no saving it. 09:50 It won't matter who puts the judge. 09:52 You don't think we're at that point now. 09:53 Not quite. Only because... 09:55 What is the danger is if there was say a Sunday law, 09:59 which we are told will come from people clamoring 10:01 to the legislators. 10:02 If you had a certain makeup, say majority Roman Catholic, 10:06 and it's a law that corresponds with what they hold personally, 10:11 I think they might be more likely 10:12 to find a confirming ruling. 10:16 Exactly, and what about... 10:18 And remember, they don't legislate 10:19 from the bench. 10:21 They cannot legislate from the bench. 10:23 They can say that legislation is unconstitutional 10:28 and they can thwart things that come to them, 10:32 but they can't set new law. 10:34 It's impossible. 10:35 Now are you familiar with, I'm sure you are, 10:37 here I'm asking you, 10:38 but the case with the Walgreens employee, 10:42 Seventh-day Adventist, 10:43 he lost that case that was in the Supreme court, 10:45 could it have been... 10:47 Well, there are so many technicalities of play. 10:48 You don't think the unfamiliarity 10:49 with Sabbath-keeping with... 10:52 But there were other issues. 10:55 And we need to watch all of the courts. 10:58 And it's worth remembering that 11:00 this president administration have appointed, 11:02 I think it's 5,000, thousands of judges... 11:05 No, it's 500. 11:06 Anyhow, a mass of judges on all of the levels, 11:09 as well as the Supreme court. 11:11 It's not just that level, 11:13 but we need to be seeking justice. 11:15 Shouldn't we? 11:16 And it's good to live in a country 11:17 where we have a constitutional protection 11:19 for our freedoms. 11:21 And doing justice, 11:22 doing justice out in the streets. 11:23 And, you know, I've learned something 11:25 during this time with you, Lincoln, 11:27 I do need to study more, 11:29 be more informed by the news, which I'm not, 11:31 I don't watch regular news. 11:33 I'm sorry to say, 11:34 learn more about our Supreme court 11:35 and how it works. 11:37 So I thank you this has been very educational for me also. 11:40 And, yes, loving mercy and doing justice, 11:43 we are commanded to do so. 11:47 We certainly live in tumultuous times. 11:50 I think it could easily be characterized 11:52 as many ages before us 11:55 as the age of revolution and change, 11:59 not least of which you could place COVID-19 12:03 as a disruptor on the world, as we know it. 12:06 But it's worth remembering 12:08 that the time of Jesus' life and ministry 12:10 was just as tumultuous. 12:12 It was a time of Roman occupation, 12:16 the iron rule and bloody administration 12:19 of the Roman empire 12:21 is not something to be wished for. 12:24 And in a few years 12:25 after Jesus' crucifixion and death, 12:29 there was the utter destruction of the Jewish nation, 12:31 the destruction of Jerusalem, 12:33 where not one stone was left upon another in the temple. 12:37 Therefore, 12:38 it's significant that 12:39 the Apostle Paul could say that, 12:42 "I have determined to know nothing among you, 12:46 save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 12:50 We need to cut to basics to be aware of our surroundings 12:54 but to keep our eyes 12:55 on the centrality of Jesus Christ. 12:59 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2021-02-11