President Trump's promise to nominate a Supreme Court justice similar to Antonin Scalia

In light of President Donald Trump's recent nominee for SCOTUS, and fulfilling his promise to nominate a strict constructionist for the important judicial seat, a friend of mine posted on Facebook the following words.

Note the response by newly appointed Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) Leadership Council member, Bart Barber. 

 

My response followed.

Here's the bottom line so far as I am concerned.

I have no issues whatsoever in #NeverTrump advocates voting the way they did, coming to conclusions different from mine, and voting their conscience. Period. That's what open, democratic elections are made of.

What I do have major issues with is #NeverTrump advocates like Russell Moore, the ERLC, and ERLC supporters who publicly and repeatedly condemned, ridiculed, and judged evangelicals who saw things differently, who used their own reason and conscience to conclude Donald Trump was the superior choice so far as they were concerned.

Now, however, ERLC supporters like Barber claim they owe apologies to no one for the way they voted because it was their choice to make and no one else's.

Precisely, Dr. Barber!

That's what we tried to communicate to Russell Moore for over a year while he relentlessly insisted evangelicals who voted for Trump were giving up everything they ever believed; were compromising gospel witness; were supporting moral sewage; and, most of all, evangelicals were on the wrong side of Jesus for voting for Donald Trump.

Know I neither need nor desire apologies from anyone for the way they voted. They must live with the consequences--intended or unintended--just as I do with my vote. But please stop the duplicitous nonsense that on the one hand publicly condemns the way others vote (and/or defends those that do) and on the other hand, insists the way they vote is their business and no one else's.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Les Prouty]

Excellent point Peter. They should just be quiet about it. Bart's vote was his. My vote was mine. And so on.

[Chris Layton]

Peter, Very good point! Doubt Russell will respond though. I asked him one question on Twitter and he blocked me without ever answering me. Very thin skined.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Guys. I don't understand the obvious duplicity some of these guys embrace without the least hesitance that others will surely notice. These are highly educated men, and in some cases, brilliant men. What's up with that?

[Mary]

All these are good points but the neverTrumpers should acknowledge that their prognostications that Trump wouldn't really appoint a conservative to SCOTUS was wrong. I don't know who specifically pushed that line of reasoning but there was a lot of push back to the idea that those of us who voted Trump because of SCOTUS were fools for believing he would appoint someone conservative. Even neverTrumper Eric Erickson was praising this pick. It would be nice now to see those who are so antiTrump admit that this SCOTUS pick is a home run along with some of his cabinet members. But the SCOTUS thing is HUGE or is that YUGE. No matter what you think of Trump you should be relieved today that the court is going to be on the side of religious liberty, pro-life, pro 2nd etc for quite some time to come. If Trump gets a second pick that's the ball game for the next generation.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

You're correct. I have all the pushback filed away from Moore and Moore's defenders who insisted, as you indicate, we were fools for believing that Trump would fulfill his promises. And they were dead wrong.

[Mary]

"....These are highly educated men, and in some cases, brilliant men. What's up with that?"

What's up with that is it's ALL politics now. Everything. Moore uses the same tactics and rhetoric against his foes as the Dems use against conservatives (true conservatives not the RINOS)

For years in the SBC we've heard complaints of the SBC being too close to the Republican Party. There is some truth to that claim but people like Moore are now exploiting that not because they want to make the Republican party better but because people like Moore are not at heart conservative. Moore is all social Gospel leading to Socialism. The man who is on the side of SBC Founders is against the Founders of the Nation. These people are very anti Capitalism. Moore thinks he can move the SBC to a more Blue Dog Democrat type politics like his old boss.

[peter lumpkins]

I was talking with my wife last evening and she brought up a great point we must take into consideration so far as Trump's promises toward SCOTUS is concerned. Undeniably, President Trump fulfilled the promise of Presidential-Candidate Trump by picking judge Gorsuch as Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia. What kind of judge will Trump choose over the next four years? The fact is, he never promised to choose all future justices to be like Scalia but only Scalia's replacement to be like Scalia. We can assemble an array of reasons why he most probably will do so. However, he did not promise to do so. I cannot say that I have as much hope that he will do so for all future justices as I had for the present pick to replace Scalia's seat.

We must remember President Trump is neither an ideological conservative nor a partisan politician. He's results-oriented to the core, a philosophical pragmatist, a let's-do-this-and-get-this-done kind of guy. Not that he's unprincipled as his critics maintain. Rather his principles inevitably collide with both Republican and Democratic partisans...

[peter lumpkins]

"For years in the SBC we've heard complaints of the SBC being too close to the Republican Party."

Yes, and Moore spearheaded much of the recent complaints about CR leaders being in bed with the Republican party. But now, he just hired a high-ranking GOP leader to work for us at the ERLC. What a hoot!

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2017/01/25/baptist-public-policy-arm-hires-former-tennessee-gop-leader/97025404/

[Mary]

Agreed Peter we don't know what he'll do with any future picks. And many people worry about the influence his sister may have on his court decisions. But today the Supreme Court at least will not have moved away from the 5-4 conservative majority we've had with Kennedy the wild card. So going forward it will matter which judge needs to be replaced - If it's Ginsberg and she gets replaced with a moderate that's still a bit better in the right direction. If it's Thomas that gets replaced with a moderate than we're moving the wrong way. But today is a good day. After the last eight years and the alternate Clinton pick I'll take it.

[Mary]

Peter, was that an antiTrump GOP leader he hired? Is it the guy who got fired for not supporting Trump? So much for "give the President a chance". It'll be interesting going forward because Moore can have nothing against and should be praising Trump's SCOTUS pick but he's in bed with the people who will vilify any positive words towards Trump. Moore should be coming out strongly in support of Gorsuch. He should be putting himself in front of those camaras he loves and praising this pick. Multiple op-eds should be forthcoming.

[peter lumpkins]

"But today is a good day. After the last eight years and the alternate Clinton pick I'll take it." Amen Mary!

[Scott Shaver]

Barber, Moore, Cross and the gather-the-world-to-our-doorstep-with-money-other-than-your-own in the name of Jesus crowd has forfeited all credibility with most Southern Baptists over the age of 48-55.

Barber, Moore and the SBC pundits (albeit seldom correct) can sit in their crucible of self-righteous martyrdom "nobody's vote but my own" without either the dollars or ears of Southern Baptists Christians as far as I'm concerned.

Trump would be more than gracious (even "Christian") to respond to or read anything Russell Moore shovels his way.

These guys love to play fast and loose with the money, blood, sweat, tears...and even safety of others.

Is "contempt" too strong a word?

[Scott Shaver]

Peter:

I don't mean to sound crass, but, honestly, where has Barber or Moore ever demonstrated a stroke of "brilliance" when it comes to some of these religio-cultural issues and their relevance to Southern Baptists. I don't think David Gushee, Alan Cross or a lot of these guys who are professed/credentialed "ethicists/ministers" have demonstrated what I would describe as "brilliance"...biblical, political, social or otherwise.

Maybe I missed something. Help me out here.

Maybe I missed something.

[Paul]

Peter, President Trump seems to be committed to appointing pro second amendment and pro life justices.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160929/trump-the-official-nra-qa

CWC: In addition to the Scalia vacancy, many suggest the next president could nominate three or even more additional justices to the Supreme Court. Will the Second Amendment and theHeller decision play a role in who you decide to nominate to the Supreme Court?

DJT: 100 percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment rights. Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who will eliminate them.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/14/president-elect-donald-trump-im-pro-life-the-judges-will-be-pro-life/

President-elect Donald Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with “60 Minutes” that his role of appointing a Supreme Court justice is “very important” — and that he plans to appoint pro-life justices.

“I’m pro-life,” he said. “The judges will be pro-life.”

This, and nothing less, is what we should expect from a Republican president.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Paul. "This, and nothing less, is what we should expect from a Republican president." As I indicated, I do not perceive President Trump to be a Republican partisan or conservative ideologue. He drew his broadly populous support from a combination of constituents. I hope he continues to draw from the strict constructionist view of judicial philosophy. But given his foundational philosophy, I cannot rule out he may see future seats on SCOTUS as balancing Bench philosophy rather than altering it. I don't know that this is so. I surely hope it's not. But I think there's wiggle room in what I've seen of President Trump not to rule out the notion.

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Scott. Perhaps I was being rhetorically gratuitous. :^)

[Paul]

Peter, I too have my hesitations about Trump. The point I was trying to make, and was very unclear about, was that we need to hold Trump to these high standards no matter what he ends up deciding to do.

[Lydia]

"Now, however, ERLC supporters like Barber claim they owe apologies to no one for the way they voted because it was their choice to make and no one else's.

Precisely, Dr. Barber!"

Not big critical thinkers, are they?

[Lydia]

"We must remember President Trump is neither an ideological conservative nor a partisan politician. He's results-oriented to the core, a philosophical pragmatist, a let's-do-this-and-get-this-done kind of guy. Not that he's unprincipled as his critics maintain. Rather his principles inevitably collide with both Republican and Democratic partisans..."

Exactly. He is not pastor in chief either. He was the anti establishment candidate. Many still don't get it. Trump is simply the result of people who are fed up with the establishment elites who make bank of being public servants and those who make bank off them. Media, lobbyists, etc. the kind of people Russ Moore courts.

If I don't have to prove to the big brother IRS I bought health insurance I will think something good was accomplished. His SCITUS pick is brill. Can you imagine Hillary's?

[Lydia]

"As I indicated, I do not perceive President Trump to be a Republican partisan or conservative ideologue. "

Exactly. I do think the lines of party are being redrawn even more. I don't think it is wise to think in terms of republican/democrat but to debate issues, direction and policy. He has chosen some exceptionally capable people. But it is hard to turn those huge bureaucracies that want the Byzantine status quo.

I don't agree with some of his trade policy thinking but I do want more balanced agreements. I do believe in the concept of nation states and binary agreements with them. Boy were we headed the opposite way......I am totally opposed to being beholden to an unaccountable international government chocked full of bureaucratic elites. I am thrilled on regulation rollback. Regulations have just about snuffed out small businesses and independent contractors. The left wants multinational worker drones who look to the elites for permission. That is how I view Moore. He wants to be in that establishment elite club and the SBC pays for him to do so.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia: The SBC can keep paying him but the fizzle has long left that bottle of soda pop.

[Lydia]

AL Sharpton is making the media rounds calling Jesus a refugee. Moore was making the same sound bite shame argument. such deep thinking! Hard to believe Moore was a Dean at an SBC seminary.

[Mary]

Someone needs to show me in the Bible where God commanded Israel to invite the Philistines, Amalekites you get the idea in as "refugees" The "refugee" debate (it's not really a debate as people like Moore try to pretend you're just a horrible person when you don't agree with them) but the debate is similar to the abortion debate. The pro-aborts avoid at all cost what it is they want to destroy ie a human life. In the refugee 'debate' those throw open all borders because if you don't you're a hater, xenophobe, islamaphobe, want to ignore that there are a significant number of people from many places across the globe who have declared war on the US and have a declared purpose of wiping out "infidels" Nowhere does the Bible advocate for opening your doors to just everyone even those who might want to do you harm. How you treat refugees already in the country is one thing but there is no Biblical support for just having completely open borders and trusting that everyone will play nicely together once they're through the door. It's not about religion it's about terrorism. If the Lutherans start getting rowdy we should probably start looking at them but when the overwhelming majority of terrorism going on in the world today is done by Muslims than you don't ignore that and you use it to keep people safe. It's just common sense and the elites want to pretend there is some deeper Biblical concept we're missing. The elites lost because of their arrogance and the fact the rubes ain't that dumb.

[Robert Vaughn]

I did not vote for Trump (or Clinton), and never had any inclination to do so. I never took the position of some, though, that those who were going to vote for Trump were fools, unchristian, etc., etc. I did have a big concern whether he would keep his promise regarding the Supreme Court appointment -- or a lot of other things that seemed to go against who he used to be/seemed to be. (On the other hand, there was never any doubt what kind of appointment Hillary would make.) From what I have heard and read about Neil Gorsuch, I am very favorably impressed. Also I'm impressed with several of Trump's cabinet members. There are a lot of things I don't like about Trump other than just his hair, but we must consider a lot of the negative that we hear is "fake news" and "trumped-up news" being fueled by a liberal media who absolutely despise him and his policies.

One of the things I always liked about Trump the candidate, and now Trump the President, is..."not a politician."

[Lydia]

"One of the things I always liked about Trump the candidate, and now Trump the President, is..."not a politician."

Me too. I cringe when people present him as a born-again believer or even a conservative. That was not a criteria for many people. He was not DC establishment.

I am amused by Moore's insistence that it's all about white evangelicals being angry. My previous picks where non-dc establishment too. Ben Carson and Herman Cain. So much for Moore's "angry white evangelical" meme. :o)

My position, for a long time, has been that in order to turn the Marxist direction around at all-- it is going to take an outsider. The Establishment strives to maintain itself.

[Mary]

I love how the people who are screaming against fascism are now demanding what amounts to "loyalty pledges."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ceos-stance-donald-trump_us_58936538e4b06f344e405bee?px0tumur7581l9pb9&

All the rioters in Berkeley last night saying they're fighting for free speech while shutting down speech they don't like and physically attacking those who disagree with them.

[Robert Vaughn]

Right, Lydia. Moore and others miss the boat on that (though I'm sure it is true for some). I have voted for Ben Carson and Herman Cain, and voted for Alan Keyes in the past. Yes, so much for the "angry white evangelical" meme. Those who would be pundits should try to understand us "evangelicals" better.

[Robert Vaughn]

Maybe not too far off topic (a religious/conservative concern), this interesting Donald Trump statement was reported from the National Prayer Breakfast: "I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."

An AP article said this "does not appear to have widespread public support," citing a Lifeway poll that 8 of 10 Americans "said it was inappropriate for pastors to endorse a candidate in church." But there can be a difference in what one thinks is appropriate and what ones thinks should be legal.

[Lydia]

I briefly hosted Keyes a long time ago at some function.. That guy has a quick acerbic wit.

[Lydia]

Mary, the biggest myth out there is that Communism and Facism are polar opposites. That assertion came out Oxford decades ago and made its way into mainstream political thought. They are on the same end of the continuum and function in the same way. Elites governing the collective.

[Lydia]

"An AP article said this "does not appear to have widespread public support," citing a Lifeway poll that 8 of 10 Americans "said it was inappropriate for pastors to endorse a candidate in church." But there can be a difference in what one thinks is appropriate and what ones thinks should be legal."

Are people ignoring para church ministry orgs and activist pastors who are legendary in politics like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? There is Franklin Graham and Russell Moore both claiming to represent God and Christians. All are exempt from Johnson Amendment. So what's the difference? A building with a pulpit? What am I missing?

[Robert Vaughn]

Let me explain my comment, Lydia, in reference to the Lifeway poll. I haven't seen the poll, so I don't know what they asked. I suspect if you ask whether preachers should be endorsing candidates from the pulpit, most people tend to say no. But the fact that they don't want their preacher spending his time doing that doesn't translate into the fact that they think they ought not to be free to do that.

Speaking for myself, I will use my preaching time to preach the Bible, not endorse political candidates (not that I may not mention something about one). But it is none of government's business what we say about politics or politicians -- and in our church we will pay no attention to the Johnson amendment one way or another.

But for all the talk about it, it has been going on in more politically-liberal socially-active churches for as long as I can remember. Sometimes it is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Lydia]

"But for all the talk about it, it has been going on in more politically-liberal socially-active churches for as long as I can remember. Sometimes it is the pot calling the kettle black."

Exactly. That is what I was thinking. And I think they should free to do so. The civil rights movement is a good example. And rightly so. I think wise pastors stay away from it though. Sheesh! There is even a Pope, boss of a theocracy, living in a gilded palace of riches telling people what it takes politically to be compassionate. A guy who thinks he is the Vicar of Christ recommending political policy. It never ends. The cognitive dissonance out there is stifling.

As for me, I cannot stand it no matter where I am. I now understand my parents view which was to keep votes private, stay away from personalities and focus on individual issues.

[Kathleen B. Shannon]

I did not vote for Trump, and I had to hold my nose to vote for Clinton. I really wanted Bernie, but my tribe (I'm Progressive) had too much in-fighting, in my opinion, to get that done. I still have so much hope (perhaps delusional) that people in general, particularly people who have a desire to influence towards a common good, will refrain from making and breaking their own standards. I am as guilty as the next person of doing this, and I am not proud of this. As people who value life, all of it, not just birth, I want us willingly take the perspective of others, so that we can see as they see, feel as they feel, and understand as they do. This is not meant to force agreement, but rather to enhance relationship.

[Luke]

Kathleen,

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

Kinda hard to have a relationship with someone who is walking the opposite direction. Jesus does not have a saving relationship with anyone who does not repent, turn from one's own direction to follow in His. So your gesture of relationship is noble but without merit. Someone must change in order for relationship to be possible. Jesus isn't changing so that means we must. By the same token, I cannot have a relationship with someone who believes killing unborn children is okay. I cannot have a relationship with someone who believes killing old people and terminally ill people is okay. Civility...YES! Relationship...Not hardly!

luke

[Lydia]

"As people who value life, all of it, not just birth, I want us willingly take the perspective of others, so that we can see as they see, feel as they feel, and understand as they do."

The problem I have with these sort of arguments is that babies are innocent. They are not serial killers. Adults who harm others have devalued themselves and others. But there are many who teach that babies are born evil such as Calvinists so that might be where you are coming from, not sure.. Now if you want to talk about valuing life as it relates to elderly, that is an important subject we must address in our society..

[Kathleen B. Shannon]

I am speaking about "all of life" as ALL OF LIFE. I've sat with the women (plural) who made the decision to keep their children, only to have them shamed and emotionally manipulated in order to house, clothe and feed themselves and their child. Most worked two jobs and risked a lot to keep those two jobs and their child(ren), while being called "absent mothers" and other terms which are not appropriate for posting here (or anywhere, really). The male domestic violence survivors are another group. They can't come forward for help because it isn't "manly," and they are told to "man up" or "suck it up." A lot of the male suicide attempts/completions are as a result of this. Currently, I work with the homeless and mentally ill, who are also felons. The shame they experience because they need food stamps to eat is inhumane. Let's just ignore the notion that these folks also happen to be veterans. The elderly who get "forgotten" by society is also a big problem. Uncle Larry is cranky because he is lonely, and now he has to make a place for a bunch of folks who feel "obligated" to see him once a year. I'd probably be all cranky too. Humaning is hard. The refreshing water of grace from our fellow man or woman would be wonderful to experience from time to time.

[Lydia]

Shannon,

I am a DV/abuse advocate so I am around this all the time. You are speaking of "quality of life" issues and they are dire out there. I honestly believe the church is doing a horrible job on this score. And, I believe that so called progressive (I call them regressive) political policies benefit the elites and keep the working poor citizens, the working poor citizens. That is a topic for another day but I will give you one startling example: the Affordable Care Act resulted into sending many into part time instead of full time work so the organization did not have to offer health care. And even the poor found the "Affordable" very expensive and fined by the IRS if they did not buy it. The more the social engineers "help", the worse it gets. They have not lived one day of the working poor "citizen".

Churches could fix the brakes on the poor single moms car, offer child care, pay an electric bill, give her grocery cards, etc, etc. One mega here, wants them to fill out an 8 page application that asks why they are single, divorced, etc. I get that, many people out there are leeches and take advantage which hurts those who really want to be independent. I do wish the church would judge less and help more. And I wish they would stop worshiping marriage and start recognizing abuse.

And Family Court is the worst. It is totally corrupt. Google it sometime. I thought it was only in my neck of the woods. It is all over the country.

What we can do is offer grace and support in our little corners of the world and hope it spreads. The women who eventually get on their feet are the first ones to offer help to others in ways they can. I am all about solutions but sometimes it just comes down to what we can personally do for others on their hard road.

[Robert Vaughn]

"The more the social engineers 'help', the worse it gets. They have not lived one day of the working poor 'citizen'." Right, Lydia. I am eternally suspicious of those politicians who are well off and always talking about helping the poor and working class. Many don't even begin to try to understand it.

"Churches could fix the brakes on the poor single moms car, offer child care, pay an electric bill, give her grocery cards..." There are churches that do this one person at a time (so to speak), and their contributions are often overlooked by many who heap praise on the large and wealthy groups that do it "big bucks" at a time.

One thing that happens is that often we let the leeches frighten us from doing anything at all. It can be paralyzing trying to figure out whether some need is real or fake, and all the time not accomplishing anything while trying to decide. I try to keep in mind a statement of an old Arkansas Landmark Baptist preacher, Ben M. Bogard. He is remembered as ornery and contrary in many ways, but he really did have a heart to help the less fortunate. He said, "I would rather help a lot of people who don't need it than to risk not helping the one who does."

[Alex G]

There are many Christian leftists who have given even sympathies to the fascism on the left. But more glaring is the allegedly reasonable Democrat Party supporting radicalized revolutionary violence by leftists. Where, oh where, can Russ Moore be found wagging his finger at the Democrats from which he was born? Nada. But if it comes it will be tepid and with an underlying blame that the GOP is at fault and shame on Christians for still vigorously supporting Trump.

[Lydia]

"One thing that happens is that often we let the leeches frighten us from doing anything at all. "

Yes! This is exactly what happened in several Seeker megas I was involved with. They were so intent on not helping "bad" people they ended up helping no one.

And you are right, there is a lot of individual help out there that people do not know about. Nor should they if we take Matthew 6 seriously.

[Scott Shaver]

Russ Moore won't be found "wagging fingers" at anybody but those who pay his salary.

[Lydia]

The YRR pastor and SBTS seminary entourage who took over my former church are reportedly on an anti Trump fearmongering tear that is not going over well. Evidently, Trump needs to "heal" from his hatred for Immigrants and refugees. They pray for that a lot.

I wonder if they lock their doors at night or lock their cars. That action means they are suspicious of everyone and expect everyone to steal. How hateful.

[Scott Shaver]

Good point Linda, wonder if open borders Alan Cross locks his house and automobile.

Hateful indeed.