The IM Writers Association. We aim to create a community of writers who share a common faith and passion for writing that advances the Life of Jesus Christ. #58: The Role of JudgesIDENTITY POLITICS | Mark Boonstra: Judges should not seek to achieve any particular outcome, but should simply be fair and impartial arbiters.
Listen to our podcast version: Sponsored by John & Rachel Hickey. In the pursuit of justice, it is essential for the judicial system to interpret the law fairly and without cultural biases, aligning with the biblical principles of righteousness and equity. As it is written in Deuteronomy 16:18-20 (ESV): "You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you." This passage underscores the importance of impartiality and fairness in upholding justice, emphasizing that the law must be applied without favoritism or prejudice. By adhering to these principles, the judicial system can maintain integrity, protect the rights of all individuals, and reflect the divine standard of justice that God calls us to uphold, as Judge Boonstra will clarify. -Phinney
The Role of Judges in the Trump EraIt has been barely a month since President Trump took office. His decisive actions during that short time have been nothing short of breathtaking. Moving with breakneck speed, the administration has acted swiftly to rein in government spending, to shine a light on rampant fraud and abuse, and to transparently unmask the unfathomable level of graft and corruption perpetrated by and through federal agencies and departments. With the complicity of the Congress over the years, as well as of prior presidents who sat back and watched while it happened, the unelected bureaucracy has become a monolithic monstrosity accountable to no one. Until now. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States contains what is known as the “vesting clause.” It states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Correspondingly, the legislative power is addressed in Article I of the Constitution, and the judicial power is addressed in Article III. Thus were born the three branches of American government. Seems simple enough, doesn’t it?Well, it was, until the so-called fourth branch of government—the unelected bureaucracy, also known as the “Deep State”—reared its ugly head, asserted its independence, and declared itself accountable to no one. Even to the president. And even though it is ostensibly a part of his executive branch of government. So, part of what President Trump is doing is asserting his authority under the Constitution and its vesting clause to bring the federal agencies and departments back under the president’s control and direction. Reasserting that all of the executive power is vested in the president, per the Constitution, and that federal agencies and departments are not free to disregard the president’s authority, direction and policies, or to decide to instead pursue their own preferred policies and to oppose his. Not surprisingly, those who have benefited from the fraud, and those who have pocketed our hard-earned tax dollars or redirected them to fund their pet political causes, aren’t taking it lying down. They have too much to lose. But they no longer control the White House. And they don’t control either of the houses of Congress either. So, where do they turn? Why, to the courts, of course.Scores and scores of lawsuits have already been filed in an effort to counter President Trump’s reassertion of executive authority over federal agencies and departments. And some judges have, at least temporarily, put a pause on some of President Trump’s directives. Others have declined to do so. What is the proper role of the courts in all of this? And what exactly is the role of a judge generally? The current circumstances give us all a chance to brush up on our civics.Alexander Hamilton once said, in Federalist No. 78, that the judicial branch of government, lacking “influence over either the sword or the purse,” was “the weakest of the three” branches of government. He continued: [T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. So, the judiciary’s role is a limited one. Essentially, it is to interpret the law, and to apply the law to the facts of the cases as they arise. Judges should not seek to achieve any particular outcome, but should simply be fair and impartial arbiters. Judges thus are not policymakers. Policymaking falls within the purview of the legislative and executive branches of government.But sometimes judges just can’t help themselves. Although judges, when they put on their black robes, should take off their advocates’ hats, some judges never learn to do so. They instead have their eye on the outcomes they prefer, and they play policymaker to achieve them. And, too often, those who are unable to achieve their policy goals in the legislature or from the sitting president, turn to such activist judges and essentially ask them to implement the policies they have been unable to advance through the policymaking branches of government. But courts are not mini-legislatures, and judges should not try to be policymakers. As a sitting judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals, I once had occasion to describe it this way:
Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court once observed that judicial forays into policymaking result in a government that is “not only not the government of laws that the Constitution established; it is not a government of laws at all.” He quoted the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which aptly stated:
Ultimately, that is what this is all about. Do we want a government of laws? Or a government of men? Do we want a society governed by the Rule of Law? Or one controlled by raw political power? Time will tell where all of this will lead.Judges have a role in deciding these issues. But they should remember that their role is a limited one. They are not policymakers. They should not have their eye on any political prize. They should be what the framers of our Constitution intended them to be—impartial arbiters, fairly interpreting and applying the law to the facts of the cases before them. Nothing more; nothing less. One thing is sure: at least some of these issues will end up before the Justices of the United States Supreme Court.God grant them wisdom!
Identity Politics, with Mark Boonstra & Dr. Stephen Phinney, is an extension of IOM America’s IM Christian Writers Association. The mission of the authors is to restore faith in God & country. -Mark | Mark’s Substack | Visit Mark’s Website
IM Writers Association is a collective group of Christian writers who support the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ while sustaining an eschatological view of the Holy Scriptures of God.
|
Posts
