Every year the U.S. Supreme Court issues rulings that create a lot of headlines and social commentary. When they rule in a way that the political left does not like, those people scream bloody murder about the injustice that has been delivered, and how conservative justices are ruling wrongly. When they rule in a way that the political right does not like, then that side is the one screaming bloody murder, and shouting how liberal justices are ruling wrongly.
However, if the justices are ruling as impartial arbiters based on what is actually contained in the law, politics should have no bearing on their decision. Sadly, in our day, there are justices who rule based on politics rather than on the law. But that is not the way our legal system is supposed to work. Conservatism in the legal arena is not the same as conservatism in the political arena. Judges should be ruling based on the law, not political opinion.
That said, in recent times there are those who believe that political ideology and outcomes should trump the law. Particularly, many on the progressive left are so upset that the Supreme Court is not ruling the way they want, that they have been proposing ways to override the Court. For instance, there have been several Democrat presidential candidates that have offered proposals that would add members to the court in order to pack it in a way that it would be dominated by people of their political persuasion. In another case, a Democrat senator from Rhode Island filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” in a case that he wanted to influence. His brief contained a threat that if the justices didn’t rule like he wanted, he would support ways to “restructure the court.”
So where does this kind of thinking come from? The approach that now exists is based on biblical worldview concepts that sees justice as “blind” and the rule of law as its guiding principle. Attempts to make political preferences the determining factor in court outcomes obviously comes from a different source. That kind of thinking is based on a naturalistic worldview. It is the view that the natural universe is all that exists, and that human beings must, therefore, create their own morality – and the morality that is created is legitimately done by those who have the power to do it. Thus, ruling on court cases based on political ideology, and packing the court to change legal outcomes, is not seen as improper in any sense as long as it accomplishes the goals of the ones who are in power.
A biblical worldview attempts to create societal order based on principles that emerge out of the Bible. As such, equality, justice, order, fairness, and an objective understanding of morality are the foundational principles that guide the legal system. When naturalistic beliefs rule the day, these norms go out the window and the political preferences of the justices become the guiding principles. Christians should never let that happen. If it does, inequality, injustice, chaos, unfairness, and relativistic morality will become the law of the land.