What Is a Proper Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominees?
Commentary by Bruce Gore
Pastor of Atlanta, Jefferson and Rome, GA
John Roberts Jr., President Bush's
recent nominee to the US Supreme Court, has been receiving rave reviews
from his peers and Washington's lawmakers. Most in the Republican
Party hope for his quick confirmation.
But many Democrats, though they don't doubt or question his qualifications,
are committed to withholding their support until he answers questions
on two key issues: abortion rights and gay marriages.
These issues have become the litmus test for any new appointment to
America's highest court. And the possibility that once on the bench
Judge Roberts could, as did Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, become
a "swing vote" in future cases dealing with abortion has
both pro-choice and family planning groups concerned.
Therefore his response to questions on the issues of gay marriage and
abortion will be thoroughly scrutinized. As Associated Press Writer Will
Lester noted, "Just over half of all Americans—and a solid
majority of women—want to know John Roberts' position on abortion
before the Senate votes on whether to elevate him to the Supreme Court" (AP
release, Friday, July 22, 2005).
Those who have grown up since the end of World War II may not realize
how much the moral climate of Western nations has changed in just the
past 60 years. Prior to that time no judicial candidate who supported
same-sex marriage or aborting the life an unborn child would have stood
a chance of sitting as a judge in any high court in the land. Now, any
who oppose openly homosexual marriage or abortion will almost certainly
not be appointed to any high court in most Western nations.
As in nations today, judges in ancient Israel were an essential part
of its leadership. They were chosen and appointed with this instruction, "Moreover
you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men
of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them ... And let them
judge the people at all times…." (Exodus 18:21-22).
Judges were to be the standard bearers of moral conduct—fearlessly
standing for a level of behavior that respected the rights and lives
of all. Their rulings were not to be driven by popularity polls but by
an understanding that each judge is accountable to the higher authority
of God. "Then he [the Jews' king] set judges in the land
..., city by city, and said to the judges, ‘Take heed to what you
are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord, who is with
you in the judgment' " (2 Chronicles 19:5-7).
Ezekiel, a biblical prophet sent from of God, once criticized his own
people for not distinguishing that which is holy from that which is profane
(Ezekiel 22:26). Is a similar shift in values happening today? One thing
is certain, earlier perceptions of right and wrong are changing. What
once was seen as evil is now seen as acceptable and good. What once was
called good is now looked upon as evil.
Do we fit the description of another of God's prophets: "For
My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are silly children,
and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good
they have no knowledge" (Jeremiah 4:22).
Historians put much of the blame for the collapse and fall of the ancient
Roman Empire on its moral decay. Sexual abuse of children became rampant.
Receiving personal satisfaction and gratifying desires for pleasure became
the all-consuming purpose for life. As it plunged into decadence, homosexuality,
abortion and infanticide became commonplace. A pregnancy or the birth
of a baby often came to be looked upon as merely an obstacle to the good
life.
Could we be headed for a similar fate as that of the ancient Roman
Empire?
  To
learn what God expects of America and Britain as moral examples for the
rest of the world and the price our people will have to pay if we don't,
request or download your free copies of our booklets: The
Ten Commandments and The United States
and Britain in Bible Prophecy.
|
