Excerpts from

Courting Disaster

By Pat Robertson

Integrity Publishers

September 2004

««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««

How Far Will the Courts Go?

The doctrine of stare decisis (meaning “to stand by decided matters”) is one of the most ancient principles of law. By design and by mandate of the Constitution, the courts are not lawmaking entities. Courts interpret laws and offer advice on principles that ought to be considered in the legislative process. By looking at case law and by reviewing the policies by which other courts have decided important issues at various levels, attorneys have a better sense of how to approach the issues and, more importantly, judges have grounds for rendering their opinions. That’s how it’s supposed to be. But, sadly, that’s not the way it is anymore. Far too often, today’s Supreme Court decisions are out of step with the will of the people, reading more like something from the legislative branch than the judicial one. Since Marbury v. Madison, the floodgates of moral relativism have been thrown wide open…it’s tempting to believe that justices were really testing to see how far they could go without getting caught.

The Activist Court

Those on the political Left--especially in government, universities, law schools, and the media--are very much in favor of an activist court, and they vigorously defend the Court’s usurpation of power. They know that Congress would never be able to convince the American people to support their liberal agenda--unlimited abortions, gay marriage, racial preferences, flag burning, banning the Ten Commandments, and discriminating against the free exercise of religion--so they do it through the courts.

To those who support moral relativism and legal realism, the ideologies that dominate most leftist thinking, the Constitution is simply whatever the judges say it is. And the law, by implication, is whatever nine unelected justices can get away with. For them, there is no logical connection between law and morals. Justice is based on feelings. Time-honored principles such as stare decisis, enumerated powers, and judicial restraint are merely inconvenient distractions. For these men and women, everything is “relative” and nothing is “absolute.” But the legal realists can only win their cases if no one challenges them; and that’s why it’s essential that Christians and everyone else who believes in American justice must stand on history and principle, and demand a stop to the radical activism that’s being carried out in the courts in the name of “fairness,” “sensitivity,” and “social equity.”

Our Prayer Foundation

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 completed the solemn task of drafting a code of government to last for the ages, they were finally able to return to their homes and families, and get back to the ordinary business of daily life. They were citizens of a free and independent nation, but each of these men must have waited with a sense of uneasy anticipation, for the real test of the Constitution was still to come. By the terms of Article VII, which they had written, nine of the original thirteen states had to ratify the new Constitution for it to be legally binding. So the document was printed, published, and sent out to the constitutional conventions in each of the states. Word eventually came back to the provisional government on June 21, 1788, that nine states had recognized and adopted the new Constitution; and despite the protests of the Antifederalists, who feared losing local autonomy to the federal government, by 1790 all thirteen states had followed suit.

The Bill of Rights, which is made up of the first ten amendments, was a matter of great importance to many of the framers. Lack of a statement of “first freedoms” had provoked angry debates throughout the constitutional conventions and at times threatened to shut down the entire process. After being persuaded by Jefferson of the need for a “bill of rights,” James Madison led the debates and took an active role in the political maneuvering between the House and Senate. The House approved the Bill of Rights on September 24, 1789, and the Senate gave its approval the next day. The state legislatures ratified them on December 15, 1791.

Simultaneously with this process, the first Congress began working on other matters of urgency, including the appointment of chaplains for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the army and navy. The members had not forgotten Benjamin Franklin’s call to prayer or President Washington’s example of reverence for the providence of God throughout their long ordeal. From that time to this, every American president has followed the tradition of issuing a Thanksgiving proclamation, calling for a national day of prayer. George Washington issued the first one at the request of the first Congress, sending them a letter asking that a day be set aside, “devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be,” so that “we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him . . . to . . . promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.”

One hundred and fifty years later, when America found itself in World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took an even bolder step and called upon the American people to take part in “reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas,” so that “we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God.” Federal law now directs the president to “issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May . . . as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.” Presidential inaugurations open and close with prayer. The Supreme Court and other courts around the nation traditionally seek divine protection over their proceedings. The United States Supreme Court opens each session with the invocation, “God save the United States and this honorable Court!” And Congress has gone even further, setting aside not only a prayer room in the Capitol for members of the House and Senate, but appointing fulltime chaplains to open each session with prayer and to help deal with the personal and spiritual needs of the members. Most people are surprised to learn that there is a chapel in the U.S. Capitol for the use of congressmen and senators. The room is decorated with a stained-glass panel showing President Washington kneeling in prayer. Surrounding the mosaic are the words, “Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust,” with the Scripture reference Psalm 16:1. Below the picture is a copy of the Bible on a bookstand, and standing right beside it, an American flag. There’s no war of ideologies here--just a silent tribute to the legitimate heritage of the American people.

Law But No Order

Commenting on these findings, economist Bruce Bartlett says that the impact of today’s out-of-control tort litigation, including outrageous damage awards like the ones above, is about the same as putting a 2 percent tax on everything bought or sold in this country. It’s a tax we all have to pay. The long-term effect of accumulated tort losses, in the form of bankruptcies, lost jobs, reduced investments, higher prices for medical insurance, and the increased cost of goods and services of every kind, hits every one of us to the tune of $721 a year. Problems throughout the legal system are, in fact, a reflection of the growing disunity and disharmony in American culture. Reckless litigation of “rights” by unscrupulous lawyers means that the law is no longer an inviolable standard: we’ve all seen the headlines, and we’ve laughed at the lawyer jokes. But more and more, it seems, the law is not just what the judges say; it’s whatever you can get away with. As a law school graduate myself, I’m acutely aware of the public’s attitude about these things, and it troubles me to see so much disrespect and disarray surrounding the law profession. Regard for lawyers and legal professionals has dropped tremendously during the past thirty years. As a result, people with an ax to grind simply dismiss the whole concept of personal responsibility--but they all know their “rights”!

Thanks to the hedonism and self-indulgence of the baby boom generation, which has worked its way through the culture and is now entering middle age, ours has become the most permissive and promiscuous society in history. MTV and other raunchy cable channels, along with magazines such as Us, Self, People, and a host of others, are only too eager to feed America’s insatiable desire for self-gratification. Purveyors of pop culture and slick TV advertising tell us, “You deserve it!” and “You’re worth it!” Millions of people flock to that message--especially young people, for whom the idea of deferred gratification doesn’t exist. Misinterpretations of free speech and equal rights have left a disastrous legacy for this country. Because of the “strict separation” of church and state imposed by the Supreme Court in the Everson ruling, the law today implies that the rights of religious people may be tolerated only so long as they’re kept out of sight: in the home, the church, or the synagogue. Most of the time, liberals completely ignore the second part of the First Amendment guarantee, which is the free exercise clause. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that, at least in the current environment, the Supreme Court will not hear a challenge based on the free exercise clause because they don’t want to go there. They allow groups like the ACLU to use the establishment clause like a left-handed sledgehammer against religion, but they will not listen to an argument involving free exercise, because they don’t want to deal with those issues. That’s inherently unfair.

Is God Passé in the Public Square?

The courts have ordered that the public square must be free of Christmas carols, Nativity scenes, and other religious symbols in order not to offend the sensitivities of those who have no religious beliefs. So the minority rules the majority. National symbols, including the Ten Commandments inscribed on the wall of the Supreme Court; the words of Thomas Jefferson warning of divine judgment on any nation that fails to recognize God’s holy commandments, on the walls of Jefferson Memorial; and even the court’s own oath of office, So help me God,” must all be interpreted as relics of our colonial past, and of no enduring significance. In all matters, public and private, the people must be protected from religion contamination, while sexual perversions are practiced openly and fully protected by law. How far the mighty have fallen.

What we must realize, if we really want to make a difference, is that we’re engaged not just in a contest of wills but in a war of worldviews. The Left has made their world-view very clear, and they’re progressing with terrifying speed toward their goal of utterly destructing the moral framework of this nation. We, on the other hand, want to preserve the nation and its glorious heritage of faith and freedom. Our Master is the Prince of peace, and for that reason a lot of Christians aren’t inclined to take a stand and fight for what we believe. But peaceful coexistence is no longer an option. The battle is joined, and we’re all in this one for the duration. I would call on every Christian to take up spiritual arms in this great struggle.

The Courts & A Culture of Death

We’ve all seen news from the Netherlands, where the culture of death is already pervasive. Doctors in that country can now decide, on their own and without any kind of consent, when its appropriate to terminate the life of a patient. Many of us have seen the horror stories in which parents

who thought their children were recovering from injuries in Dutch hospitals discovered only too late that physicians had ordered treatment halted and allowed the young people to die. And cases involving

the elderly, individuals who are incapacitated, AIDS patients, and others who are merely incontinent or immobile are equally horrifying.

Americans don’t want to find themselves in that situation. Most of us are outraged by the case of Terry Schiavo and the relentless efforts of her ex-husband to stop treatment and end her life in a Florida hospital. Here, as in so many cases, the courts are deeply implicated in showing callous disrespect for human life. But the next frontier in the struggle for life and human dignity is the debate currently taking place in the fields of bioethics and biomedical research. In August 2001, President Bush put a limit on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; and in July 2002, the President’s Council on Bioethics recommended a temporary ban on all forms of human cloning. These decisions have sparked an international debate on moral, religious, and political grounds, but there are still many in government and the large foundations that are eager for unrestricted experimentation to continue.

Some of these scientists believe that creating test-tube babies for embryonic stem cell research may lead to miraculous cures for all sorts of serious illnesses. Celebrities such as Christopher Reeve and

Michael J. Fox are among the most outspoken advocates of these kinds of therapy. Both men suffer from chronic degenerative conditions and would gladly try anything to reverse their symptoms. But the issue of embryonic stem cell research is much bigger than gene therapy; there are serious moral questions to be addressed, and no one really knows what horrors would be unleashed if, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, some unanticipated mishap were to occur in the laboratory. That’s why restraint is essential.

Life is a Gift

Christians and Jews believe that God is the author of life. Every human life, from conception to death, possesses a soul and an immortal destiny. Creating and killing human life for convenience, for commercial reasons, or even for compassion is simply not a valid justification for tinkering with God’s property or His plans for humankind.

Not everyone understands or appreciates this perspective, of course, and evidence of that can be seen in another Supreme Court case in which at least one justice showed greater respect for trees,

rivers, and other inanimate objects than for human life. The case was Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), in which the environmentalist group wanted to stop the development of a ski lodge in the Mineral King

Valley of California’s Sequoia National Forest. In the first trial, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the state and the developers. A court of appeals reversed that decision, however,

holding that the Sierra Club lacked standing because it had not shown evidence of personal injury. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the majority affirmed the decision of the appellate court and allowed plans for the resort to proceed.