Purchasing Good Behavior
Updated: Jan 2, 2020
How Politicizing Justice for Votes Threatens Our Constitutional Republic
Whether in ancient times or the 21st century, “equal justice under the law” was the objective for judges. Long ago, the Bible directed:
“You shall appoint for yourself judges…and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-19 NASB).
Millennia later, reflecting the mandate to “judge righteous judgment,” modern judges take an oath declaring:
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Sadly, as the 2020 election approaches, the halls of justice are becoming the object of politicization. No longer is the requirement of justice for all a sufficient criterion for judges, but Democratic presidential candidates are adding additional requirements:
“My litmus test is I will never…nominate any justice to the Supreme Court unless that justice is 100 percent clear he or she will defend Roe v. Wade [unlimited abortions].” Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders
“I would appoint judges to the federal bench that understand the precedent of Roe v Wade and will respect [it].” Presidential Candidate Julian Castro
“When it comes to antitrust law, what I would do is, number one, appoint judges that will enforce it.” Presidential Candidate Cory Booker
Sadly, these candidates consider judges as instruments for advancing their particular political viewpoint rather than administrating impartial justice. In fact, the presidential campaign has even caused many of the candidates to change what they themselves previously supported.
For example, many of the Democrat candidates for president who currently serve in the U.S. Senate had approved almost half of Trump’s judicial nominees before the campaign began; but now that they are presidential candidates, their approval rates have dropped to as low as 3%. Some are even proposing court-packing measures to stack all courts—from lower district courts to the Supreme Court—with individuals who hold and will advance a particular political agenda. The victim in all of this is the Constitution and the rule of law.
Chief Justice John Marshall wisely pointed out:
“We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.”
As originally established by America’s Founders, judicial nominees should be confirmed on the basis of their allegiance to the Constitution and our founding documents’ guarantee that every person has an inalienable “right to life.” The judicial system should uphold the rule of law, not divide us on the basis of modern political agendas that wish to reshape fundamental human rights.
Our sense of justice comes from the Author of the Ten Commandments, Who made us in His image (Genesis 1:27). As the Scripture affirms:
“For the Lord is our judge,
The Lord is our lawgiver…” (Isaiah 33:22 NASB).
If we do not follow and enforce His standards of equal justice, history predicts an unhappy outcome where… Foundations of Truth hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, published, edited, and distributed in any manner whatsoever without any attribution or notice to Foundations of Truth.
“Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6 NASB).
 Sanders, B. (2019, June 28). 2019 Democratic debates, night 2: Full transcript. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/transcript-debate.html
 Castro, J. (2019, June 26). Full transcript: Democratic presidential debates, night 1. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html
 Booker, C. (2019, June 26). Full transcript: Democratic presidential debates, night 1. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html
 Blitzer, R. (2019, July 8). 2020 Dems reverse course to oppose virtually all Trump judicial nominees. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-reverse-course-to-oppose-virtually-all-trump-judicial-nominees
 The court and constitutional interpretation. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx