From Roe to Obamacare, Are Republican-Appointed Judges Ruling As You Think?

Written by Heather Clark

Some Americans are stating this election that they do not believe that the inauguration of Mitt Romney and the appointment of Republican judges to the bench will result in overturning Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade and other critical rulings.

“Most Christians don’t have a clue that Republican-appointed judges are making bad rulings that destroy our Christian institutions in our nation,” Pastor Matt Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church near Milwaukee, Wisconsin told Christian News Network. “They regularly make rulings that contravene the law and word of God, and uphold or legislate wickedness from the bench.”

“The Republican track record statistically has been very bad, there’s really no reason to believe that the next ‘pro-life’ president [will appoint judges that seek to overturn Roe],” added attorney Kerry Morgan, who is running as an independent for Michigan Supreme Court justice. “I don’t think the history of any past appointees bears out that reality.”

Morgan stated that courts of law no longer use Scripture as their authority — including Republican-appointed judges — but have instead been indoctrinated with a Darwinist worldview that masquerades under the term “case law.” He noted that when the nation was founded, courts referred to the law books of William Blackstone, who based his writings upon God’s law as outlined in the Bible.

“Blackstone says in his commentaries on the law, first volume, that the laws of nature are those laws which God has written into creation, and the laws of nature’s God are those laws that God has written into the Scripture, and when compared side to side, they are one in the same law,” Kerry said. “To the extent that the courts relied on Blackstone, they relied on the law, and to the extent those laws looked to the Bible as support, then [the courts] looked to the Bible.”

Michael Peroutka, Maryland attorney and 2004 presidential candidate, explained that in the late 1800’s, law schools such as Harvard began teaching students about law from an evolutionary standpoint and cast God aside.

“We don’t look to God as the source of law anymore,” Peroutka lamented. “[The law schools teach that] law comes from man, not from God. … The entire scheme of it is from an evolutionary theory of law; it’s a Darwinization of law.”

While many believe that Republican judges are more apt to rise above the liberal and ungodly rulings of their Democratic colleagues, others such as these men state that they look back through a number of landmark decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and note that abortion, pornography and homosexuality all have been legalized in America through a Republican majority.

“The sad truth is all the worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions going back to the Earl Warren era came from courts with a majority of Republican appointees,” talk show host Steve Deace, whose radio broadcast airs in cities across America, told Christian News Network.

Roe v. Wade

“But what about the courts, you say, don’t we have to keep stacking them with Republican-appointed judges to overturn Roe v. Wade?” Deace wrote in his article Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. “It was a Supreme Court with a majority of Republican-appointed judges who gave us Roe v. Wade.”

“Every four years the GOP stampedes Christians into voting for their presidential candidate under the mantra, ‘The president appoints Supreme Court justices, so you have to vote for our candidate so that we can get the justices needed to overturn Roe. v. Wade,’” Trewhella concurred. “When you look at the historical facts, a disturbing picture emerges, however.”

Out of the seven justices that ruled in favor of Roe, a case that dealt with an admitted false claim of rape, five were Republicans. Judge Harry Blackmun, nominated by Richard Nixon, wrote the majority opinion.

“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words,” he wrote. “[I]n nearly all these instances [where it is cited], the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”

“All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” he continued. “In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

“When the Supreme court does that kind of thing, we need governors and state attorneys who will say, ‘We’re going to punish murderers in our jurisdiction,’” Peroutka outlined. “Unfortunately, there are not many right now that would do that.”

Morgan agreed. He stated that he believes Congress needs to either impeach Republican and Democratic judges who will not protect life, or make a constitutional amendment that would declare personhood at conception. And if they will not do so, the states need to stand up and take action themselves.

“Do the states have police power to protect unborn human life? The answer is clearly yes, they do,” Morgan said. “I even support state amendments that affirm the unalienable right of life to a child once conceived, and to be free from the deprivation of that right.”

“You can’t make a law that overrides God’s law,” Peroutka said. “If man violates God’s law, it’s not a law at all.”

Peroutka added that while he believes Roe v. Wade is an abominable Republican ruling, it is not law and never has been, contrary to popular belief.

“Courts don’t make law, so Roe v. Wade cannot be the law of the land,” he said. “They only make rulings in cases and controversies. … At the top of the ruling, does it say law? No. It says opinion.”

Miller v. California

In the same year that Roe v. Wade was decided, the United States Supreme Court released a landmark ruling on the issue of pornography. Again, a majority opinion was released by Republicans, with Justice Warren Burger, appointed by Richard Nixon delivering the ruling in favor of loosening restrictions on porn.

While the court determined that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment, it did state that such types of materials are permissible if they have literary or artistic value.

“We acknowledge … the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” Burger wrote. “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.”

“A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” he continued. “Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive ‘hard core’ sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed.”

When asked about the ruling, Peroutka opened his Bible to Psalm 2, which reads, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed … Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.”

“What you have here is judges taking counsel against the Lord,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘The definition of porn that you get from Scripture, we’re going to push that aside.’ … It’s not convenient, [so] they want to make it up themselves. The culture, all of those within their purview, absolutely suffer [because of this ruling].”

“The court overturned the ‘obscenity test’ in America,” Trewhella lamented. “In doing so, this Republican-appointed court opened the floodgates for pornography in our nation.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey dealt with a challenge to numerous Pennsylvania statutes that set restrictions and regulations on abortion. The plurality opinion was a joint agreement between Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan, Justice David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush and Justice Anthony Kennedy, also appointed by Reagan.

“For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” wrote O’Connor on behalf of the court. “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

“Ronald Reagan became the first president to place a woman on the United States Supreme Court bench,” stated Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries in an article entitled Our First Female Justice Argues That Babies May Be Killed So Women Can Work Outside the Home. “With the exception of a few die-hards…, most conservatives and evangelical leaders remained utterly silent, willfully ignoring the fact that Mrs. O’Connor had a flagrant pro-abortion judicial record. The most important thing, these politicos told themselves, was to be a Republican and show unity for the Republican Party leader.”

“Having conceded the premises of feminism, how could such men oppose the idea of our nation being ruled by left-wing Deborahs? They could not. They did not,” he continued. “And with this new Deborah, they also got the most honest, but horrific argument for killing babies advanced to date by the Supreme Court.”

“Anything that not only upholds Roe v. Wade, but strengthens it, and attacks the sovereignty of these United States is anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, and anti-Constitutional,” Steve Deace agreed. “But the ultimate damage these sorts of precedents do is give gutless politicians and sellout ‘pro-lifers’ an excuse to actually do nothing to save the babies, but instead continue to raise money off and politicize their killing. Thus, the killing continues.”

“For nearly 40 years after Roe, the Republicans always held a 7-2 or 8-1 majority on the Supreme Court,” stated Trewhella. “Yet, the killing of the preborn has continued and every challenge to it was shot down by the Republican-majority Supreme Court. But yet again, the mantra has been thrown up again this year, ‘You have to vote for our presidential candidate because he will appoint the Supreme Court justices.’”

Lawrence v. Texas 

The 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in fourteen states, which had heretofore made same-sex activity illegal. The ruling, written by Anthony Kennedy, was joined by the aforementioned David Souter and John P. Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, along with two Clinton appointees.

The case involved two men that had been charged with “deviate sexual intercourse” after they were caught engaging in a sexual act while police were investigating a complaint of a weapons disturbance. It cited both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as references in formulating its decision.

“The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of the court. “Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

“The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” he continued. “Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

“You can have judges spill ink as much as they want, but it doesn’t change God’s fixed standard,” Peroutka commented about the ruling. “To make this thing up as they go along and call it law, it is a vain thing. When you try to redefine what God has defined, aren’t you declaring your own divinity?”

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

In the case of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, also known as the Obamacare ruling, many were shocked that the deciding factor in the case was the agreement of Bush appointee John Roberts.

However, others were not so surprised, and said that they have been warning others about Roberts for some time.

“I was trying to scream from the mountaintops,” Peroutka stated. “In his confirmation hearing, Roberts said, ‘If I’m affirmed, the Bible will have no place in my decisions.’ If you’re not going to use God’s word as a standard, why would you use anything as a standard?”

“In my view, he did exactly what a conservative does — conserves what a liberal does,” he added. “That didn’t surprise me at all with John Roberts.”

Talk show host Steve Deace agreed.

“Once and for all, John Roberts proved the fallacy of voting for Republicans to get good judges,” he said. “We were sold by the Bush Administration and most of the conservative movement that Roberts would be our savior as the next chief justice, when in reality he was the deciding vote on the most anti-life decision from the court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or maybe even Roe v. Wade itself.”

“How is it that we’ve come to this place where five justices have no understanding of a critical clause of the Constitution?” Morgan asked. “If the government [has] authority to punish you for failure to have a health care policy approved by the government, then there are virtually no limits on federal powers. Federal government could pass a law tomorrow saying everyone should drive an American car, and if you don’t, then you’re doing to pay a penalty on your tax return. Everyone must send their kids to public school, and if you don’t, you’re going to pay a federal income tax. Everybody that’s over 21 and has 3 children must get an abortion, and if you don’t, you have to pay a penalty on your income tax return.”

Since the release of the ruling, many have been working to have it overturned — or at least to be granted an exemption. Morgan stated that he believes that Obamacare should be struck down altogether, rather than various religious organizations seeking personal waivers.

“To me, that’s not being salt and light to the culture. That’s not restraining the evil magistrate,” he said. “If it’s wrong, let’s stand up and say it’s wrong for everybody. It’s wrong on universal principle.”

Other Concerning Cases

In addition to concerns about rulings delivered by Republican-appointed judges serving on the United States Supreme Court, many have been expressing dissatisfaction with rulings on the local District Court level, as well as in the various circuit courts. As previously reported, a Republican majority recently out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state of Indiana could not deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood simply because it performs abortions.

“If a ban on public funding for abortion does not directly violate the abortion right, then Indiana’s ban on other forms of public subsidy for abortion providers cannot be an unconstitutional condition that indirectly violates the right,” wrote Judge Diane Sykes, a Bush appointee, on behalf of the court.

A district court judge in Arizona released a similar ruling just days prior, stating that Planned Parenthood offers many other services besides abortion, and for that reason, they ought to be funded.

Last month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion written by a Bush-appointed judge, who stated that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

“It is easy to conclude that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination,” wrote Judge Dennis Jacobs. “Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public. Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it.”

Republican-appointed judges in recent years have also sided with the Democrats in upholding “free speech zones” or permit requirements, and have been recognized as often favoring the government.

Is There A Difference Between the Two Parties?

“When will Christians ever learn they are getting played by the GOP?” Trewhella asked. “It is like Lucy (the GOP) pulling the football out from in front of Charlie Brown (the pro-lifers) so that he falls on his back again and again.”

“The reason most Christians do not know that Republican-appointed judges are making bad and ungodly rulings is because Christian leaders and conservative talking-heads give the Republican judges a pass on every wicked thing they do,” he said. “They simply refuse to talk about Republican dirty deeds while they readily talk about Democratic dirty deeds, so that the people just don’t know.”

Deace agreed, but believes that people are starting to see matters more clearly.

“There is no question that people are unaware, but thanks to Roberts’ ruling in Obamacare they are becoming more aware,” he said.

Peroutka said that rulers and judges need to be held to God’s standard as outlined in Exodus 18:21 and not shrink back, because if we do not “insist on these standards, we are never going to get them.”

“We need people to be Biblical and constitutional,” Peroutka declared. “Republican is not the standard.”

He compared the similarities of the parties to the WWWF.

“We look at this thing like it’s professional wrestling,” he said. “They get the crowd all whipped up, meanwhile they’re really all the same people. … I tried to point out from principle [regarding Republicans and Democrats], they’re the same guy. … Why do we get sucked into this?”

“Far too much is made of party affiliation,” said Morgan. “Some say, ‘I’m of Paul; I’m of Apollos. I’m of this party; I’m of that party,’ but that’s not the issue. The issue is what are they saying? What are their doctrines?”

“It’s pretty clear,” he added, “that [the Republican and Democrat] doctrines are not much different from each other.”

“This is all the result of the growing weakness of the church in America. Just as the government gets bigger as the source of provision when the church’s influence is weakened, so does man-made efforts at moralism become our salvation as well,” Deace concluded. “There is nothing wrong with using the Republican Party, or any man-made entity for that matter, as a means to manifest the laws of nature and nature’s God. But, when those entities become the source for righteousness, we cross over into idolatry.”

Article originally published at ChristianNews.net.