Religion Clause: Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto Of Ban On Tran...

Religion Clause: Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto Of Ban On Tran...: Last week, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear vetoed ( veto message ) SB 83 ( full text ) which bars transgender girls in grades 6 though 12 fro...

Ruth Harbor this Thursday on Faith On Trial

This week on Faith On Trial we will have as our guest Mark McDougal, executive director of

Ruth Harbor. Its main mission focus to help young women with unplanned pregnancies and programming originally culminated with the baby’s birth. Since the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy don’t end when the baby is born, we have begun a new program for young women with small children. Through this we will live more fully into our mission for positive life change by expanding the comprehensive services and programs to continue beyond pregnancy to now include young moms and their babies. He will also discuss with Deacon Mike and Gina Ruth Harbor's annual Walk for Life coming up on May 7. 

Our program airs Thursday morning at 9:30 on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com and is available on several local stations.

Religious exemptions… Not always popular with some elements

By Deacon Mike Manno

During the past few years we have been overwhelmed by the coronavirus pandemic — or, perhaps it would be better rephrased as: over the last few years we have been overwhelmed by the governmental response to the pandemic.

We have seen lockdowns, mask requirements, and other “public health” measures imposed by officials who were either working for the public good, to protect the population from the dreaded disease, or, as heard from many quarters, they were working to control and impose their own hidden agendas.

That latter observation is bolstered by the fact that there were churches which were not only required to be closed while strip clubs and abortions facilities were allowed to remain open, but were fined and pastors threatened with imprisonment if they dared open their doors.

In one venue, a church held its services in its parking lot where everyone stayed in their cars and the service was conducted over a low-power FM radio band. The cops still showed up and tagged the cars.

And still at this date, churches and houses of worship whose leaders took the local officials to court and won are still in litigation over the amount of damages to which they are entitled. Just recently the Pacific Justice Institute settled such a case on behalf of five churches for a six-figure award.

But among all the confusion between blue and red states over how far the “emergency” COVID restrictions should go, none seemed to be as clear cut and near to home as the mandates that required people to get the vaccine as a condition of continued employment. And nothing exacerbated the situation more than the ability or, too often, the inability to obtain a religious exemption to that mandate.

For most religious objectors, their problem with the vaccine had to do with its tie to an aborted cell line that was 50 years old. From it vaccine manufacturers were able to create cells that could be divided which allowed them to reproduce. Those cells were then used for the testing of two of the popular vaccines; the third manufacturer used the cells as part of its manufacturing process.

Thus, for some pro-lifers, use of the vaccine was something akin to a pact with the devil, and so they refused the vaccine with, admittedly, good reason. But too often employers were not looking for a good reason, only an easy fix, especially in places where the government was forcing employees to choose, a jab or a job.

A lot of ink, broadcast time, and bandwidth was spent airing this conflict and it was interesting to see how the public felt about the issue.

The folks from Pew Research did just that, reporting that the question of religious exemptions was more controversial than many had expected and might signal an advance warning for many Catholics and religious conservatives whose objection to the vaccine is tied to the vaccine’s link to the aborted fetal cells mentioned above.

Pew conducted the survey of 10,441 people from March 7 to 13. The survey was weighted to represent the entire adult population of the United States by gender, race, ethnicity, party affiliation, educational, “and other categories.”

The term “weighted” in reference to opinion polls makes a lot of people nervous, and, of course, it can be used to create a false result for an unethical polling firm. Rather, it is a statistical device to prevent the oversampling or underrepresentation of different groups by conforming the group’s responses to its actual percentage of the population.

It found that 67 percent of those surveyed believed that “most people with religious objections are just using religion as an excuse to avoid the vaccine.” Thirty-two percent of those people felt that employees with religious exemptions should still be required to get the jab or lose their jobs. Among the skeptics to religious exemptions, 37 percent believed the objectors should lose their jobs if they refused the vaccination; only 29 percent said they should be allowed to keep their jobs.

Of the 31 percent who believed that “most people with religious objections sincerely believed getting a COVID-19 vaccine is against their religion,” 62 percent said that they should be allowed to keep their jobs despite an employer mandate.

Interestingly, while 43 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents thought those seeking the exemption were sincere, 55 percent believed religion was simply being used as an excuse. Seventy-seven percent of the Democrats, on the other hand, and those leaning that way, including atheists, agnostics, and “nothing in particular” felt religion was an excuse.

On the question of whether workers who refuse to comply with their employer’s mandate should be able to keep their jobs, 82 percent of those in the Republican category thought they should while only 46 percent in the Democrat camp agreed. Catholics were slightly higher in their belief that religion was an excuse than Protestants, 66 percent to 59 percent. But Catholics were more supportive of the employee keeping his job by 31 percent to the Protestants’ 24 percent.

According to the survey, 27 percent said employers should not mandate the vaccine, 44 percent said employers should only encourage the jab, and 29 percent said employers should require the vaccine.

Well, there are a lot of numbers and I’ll leave it to people wiser than I to make sense of them. For myself, I see a few problems that the survey uncovered. First is the woeful lack of compassion for those who have a sincerely held religious belief, such as a pro-life Christian conservative.

But beyond that, why? Is it a failure to recognize the legitimate concern over the connection with abortion? Does it mean abortion is an issue that is easily marginalized? Would a stronger response from Church leaders respecting the concerns of the pro-lifers have changed attitudes?

I confess that I don’t know the answers to any of these questions or the mountain of other questions that this survey can generate. Maybe some graduate student might pick this up for a master’s thesis. I have some suspicions but I’ll allow someone with better analytical skills to do it. 

+ + (You can reach Mike at DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Biden is clueless on transgender youth

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

It was reported on April 1 that President Biden took the opportunity on "Transgender Day of Visibility" to commend the parents of transgender children for "affirming your child's identity," saying it is "one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy."

This was not an April Fool's joke. No, this is the mindset of the president and an administration that purports to being compassionate, but in reality is promoting child abuse on a massive scale. No need to impute malicious motive—cluelessness will do.

It's too bad they don't actually listen to the stories of young people who have undergone this abnormal process.

A recent story in The Telegraph about an English girl who transitioned to a boy, and back again, is heartbreaking. The April 6 article is titled, "I Was Allowed to Transition at 18 Without Question—But I Regretted It." Here is a synopsis of her travails.

Allie was raised in Lancashire "in a very masculine environment." Because her mother worked nights, she was cared for by her father. She shared a home with two stepbrothers, who were eight years older than her. Her parents divorced when she was 11. In that same year, she became convinced that she was "meant to be a boy."

Allie learned through the internet about trans people and thought this might be the answer to her condition. She decided she was "meant to be born male." Initially, she found herself sexually attracted to girls, but then realized she was bisexual. At age 12, she suffered from anxiety and depression. She spent the next year fluctuating between feeling "girly" one day, and wanting to "dress like a man," the next day.

At 14, Allie was sexually abused by a stranger after "being groomed online." Four years later she decided she wanted to transition to a boy. "The big narrative being pushed is that transition will be the answer to all your problems," she said.

This is exactly the position of the Biden administration. It turned out to be tragically wrong.

Allie's private doctor prescribed testosterone so she could transition. He never once attempted to explore "the possible causes of my gender dysphoria, such as my mental health problems or my difficulties fitting into society (my emphasis)." Thus did she prove to be more astute than her doctor.Not only that, she was given a "30-minute phone consultation." In fact, she never had "a face-to-face consultation." When she was given her prescription, there was "no exploration of my sexual trauma, and no mention of my upbringing and how that could have affected things." No one told her about possible side effects, "such as heart problems and loss of bone density, or the extent to which it could impact fertility."

The first year after she transitioned she was "over the moon." Her body became more muscular and her periods stopped. She felt "a lot more emotionally stable" and was treated well by her friends. This was all good, except that she came to the conclusion that she "was never completely comfortable." She knew something was wrong, and events proved she was right.

During her first year at the University of Lancaster she experienced "a bad mental health episode." She attempted suicide and was diagnosed with autism.

When Allie turned 20, she realized that "I really wanted a family—and I had chosen to self-sterilise for no good reason." She then decided to transition back to being a female [she never really became a male—nature made that impossible], partly because "ever since transitioning, my menstrual cycle has been an absolute mess." She is now being treated for polycystic ovary syndrome.

Allie was 11 when she learned of her mental health problems, and began to transition when she was 18. This needs to be said if only because she is a lot older than the young people Biden wants to empower. He is encouraging children to "go with the flow," telling parents they need to be supportive.

At one of the presidential debates in 2020, Biden threw his support behind children as young as 8 and 10 who think they want to transition to the other sex. "The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decided, you know I want to be transgender. That's what I'd like to be. It would make my life a lot easier. There should be zero discrimination."

Note that Biden sees this issue in terms of discrimination, not mental or physical health. This is the kind of robotic response he has been trained to develop.

Of course, chemical castration and body mutilation are the real issues, not discrimination. Nobody thinks that eight and ten-year olds are being discriminated against because they cannot drink alcohol, drive a car or vote. Responsible adults are committed to the psychological and physiological wellbeing of children—they don't allow them to be exploited by irresponsible adults.

At some point in the future, historians will look back at this period in history and wonder why so many prominent Americans aided and abetted child abuse. That day can't come too soon.

Religion Clause: Alabama Legislature Passes Bill On Bathrooms and L...

Religion Clause: Alabama Legislature Passes Bill On Bathrooms and L...: Yesterday the Alabama legislature gave final passage to, and sent to the governor for her signature, HB322 ( full text ). The bill, with ce...

Massachusetts officials won’t allow this Hispanic church to open a school

by Lauren Moses & Jorge Gomez 

First Liberty and the Massachusetts Family Institute recently stepped in to represent a Boston-area church facing blatant discrimination from city officials.

We sent a letter on behalf of Real Life International (Vida Real) in Somerville, Massachusetts urging the Somerville Superintendent and the Public School Committee to allow the church to open a religious private school. Vida Real is a largely Hispanic immigrant congregation that first sought permission to open the Real Life Learning Center (RLLC) in September 2021, but committee members have voiced opposition to the church’s religious beliefs.

Although the church has promptly complied with all the legal requirements, the Committee has imposed several roadblocks to the church’s application. These include multiple-month delays in considering the application and false claims that the application was incomplete or incorrect.

The Committee also sent the church a list of 35 hostile questions about the school’s proposed curriculum, questioning whether it could adequately provide instruction because it would teach in accordance with its religious beliefs. It even challenged whether the school should be allowed to teach a faith-based curriculum at all.

At a recent meeting, one Committee member said denying the church’s application was the “morally right thing to do” and that the Committee should do “everything [it] could” to prevent the school from opening, despite what the law requires. She added that spending money on costly litigation to prevent or delay RLLC’s opening was “well worth it.”

The Committee even went so far as to say:

“The school’s position on homosexuality and creationism make it difficult to see how a thorough science and health curriculum is possible. The school’s approach to student services and counseling appears to devalue evidence-based psychology and its emphasis on approaches rooted in the belief that mental illness is caused by sin and demons is unscientific and harmful… Overall, the school was entirely contrary to the values of SPS and the idea of educating the whole child as being inclusive.”

What city officials are doing to Vida Real isn’t just outrageous, it’s illegal and unconstitutional. First Liberty Deputy General Counsel Justin Butterfield made it clear: “Government cannot ban a religious school because they disagree with its religious beliefs.”

Massachusetts law expressly prohibits the Committee from withholding approval “on account of religious teaching.” Additionally, the First Amendment ensures religious schools are protected as they teach principles central to their faith. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that private, faith-based education is a constitutionally protected right.

The school committee’s mistreatment is shocking and violates the law. But this is not the first time city officials have harassed Vida Real.

The church meets in a building directly across the street from city hall. In February 2021, during the regular Sunday morning worship, a “civil servant” from the health department accompanied by multiple police officers interrupted Pastor Luis Morales’s sermon.

They entered the sanctuary, and the “registered sanitarian” began taking video and pictures with her phone, causing many of the churchgoers to panic. City officials took this outrageous action, because they suspected the church might be over capacity based on COVID restrictions requiring no more than 40% occupancy. (The following day the limit was set to be increased to 50%).

Watch the video below. In it, Pastor Morales explains what happened that Sunday morning, including footage of the local officials intruding in the building:

Churches and religious schools in America should not be subject to such blatant discrimination. It’s time for Somerville officials to stop treating Vida Real unfairly and allow it to open the school.

As First Liberty continues to defend Vida Real, we need YOUR support to restore this church’s religious freedom and put a stop to the city’s unlawful actions. Please donate to First Liberty today, so we can protect churches and faith-based schools across the country from aggressive attacks.

What's wrong with these people?

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

The law recently signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Parental Rights in Education bill, prohibits teachers from instructing kids as young as 5-years-old about sexual orientation and gender identity; it also ensures parental rights. Though it never mentions the word "gay," it is nonetheless being dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill. 

There are several issues here. 

Why would a teacher want to ask little kids whether they are sexually attracted to those of the opposite sex or the same sex? What's wrong with these people? Why would a teacher want to lie to little kids about their ability to switch their sex, something which is immutable, God-given and nature-ordained? What's wrong with these people? 

"It's not like there's no kernel of truth in that maybe kids that young shouldn't be thinking about sex at all." Those are not the words of a prude—those are the words of Bill Maher. Speaking about supporters of the DeSantis bill, he noted that "it's not like you're not allowed to literally not say gay, but they just don't want teachers talking about it. They think it's the province of parents." 

So if Maher gets it, why don't others? Why did a trio of women hosts at the Oscars slam the law, jumping up and down yelling, "Gay, Gay, Gay"? Why did Hillary Clinton also mislabel the bill, ending her recent podcast screaming, "Gay, Gay, Gay"? What's wrong with these people? 

It's one thing for the political opponents of the law, including celebrities, to call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill, quite another when the media do the same. To be sure, the media have every right to quote critics of the bill who characterize the bill this way, but they have no right to officially brand it this way. 

We did a Nexis search of the number of media outlets that, in its headline, identified the bill as the "Don't Say Gay" bill. From March 1 to April 8, we found over 450 such instances. 

When conservatives put a negative political label on a bill they dislike, the media invariably identify it by its proper name—the one given to it by the bill's sponsor. They may shorten the Affordable Care Act to ObamaCare, but they won't publish a headline calling it the "Socialist Healthcare" bill. Nor should they. But when it comes to their political allies in the Democratic Party, they have a different set of rules. 

What's wrong with these people? Why do they prostitute their journalistic ethics? 

What's really wrong with all of these people is not simply that they lie about the bill, but that they really want little kids to be sexually engineered by teachers, preferably behind the back of their parents. They need to be confronted and defeated at every level.

Can the state regulate who religious organizations can hire?

Sarah Perry

This week on Faith On Trial Sarah Parshall Perry, legal fellow with the Edwin Meese III Canter for Legal and Justice Studies with the Heritage Foundation, to discuss the ramifications of a case the Supreme Court just sent back to the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved a man who claims to be bi-sexual and living in a same-sex relationship applied for and was refused a job with a Christian non-profit. The claim is discrimination, but will the court uphold the claim?

You can listen to the compete program here: https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/274fdde4/union-gospel-mission-v-matthew-woods-4722

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 9:30 CT on 1150 AM and 94.5 FM in Des Moines; 88.5 FM in Adel, 90.5 in Creston, and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to other programs you may have missed.

Republican Senators Demand Investigation of 5 Fully-Formed Babies Killed in Late Abortions or Infanticides - LifeNews.com

Republican Senators Demand Investigation of 5 Fully-Formed Babies Killed in Late Abortions or Infanticides - LifeNews.com: Republican senators have signed a letter demanding an investigation into the deaths of five fully-formed babies who were killed either in very late-term abortions or infanticides. Abortions are legal up to birth in the nation’s capital and a Washington D.C. abortion clinic that publicly admits killing viable babies in abortions may have gone even further […]

Hiring by religious non-profits: Next on FOT

The question this week is how much control religious non-profits have over their internal hiring
decisions. Deacon Mike and Gina will interview Sarah Parshall Perry, legal fellow with the Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies about a case just rejected by the Supreme Court, which may find it way back, Union Gospel Mission v. Matthew Woods. The case involves a bi-sexual man living in a same-sex relationship – all of which violates the tenants of the mission – who was denied a job over his lifestyle. Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on several Central Iowa radio stations and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also find and listen to older programs.   

Abortion and Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee - The Stream

Abortion and Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee - The Stream: If the Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, another pro-abortion justice will be added to the Supreme Court.

Another press hoax…Or is it?

By Deacon Mike Manno

One of the towering figures of American journalism was The New York Sun, 1833-1950. The Sun, under the direction of Benjamin Day, was considered to have ushered in the era of the penny press, where newspapers, mostly broadsides at first, were sold for one cent, showing publishers that news was a commodity which could be bought and sold.

Just for reference, other notable editors of the era were James Gordon Bennett of the New York Herald, and, perhaps the most famous of the group, Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune. The commercial expansion of the news business ultimately allowed newspapers to become weaned from their political sponsors, thus ending the era of the party press in which each publisher was subsidized by one political faction or another.

This, of course, resulted in circulation wars to increase the paper’s revenue. The early years of this era led to stiff competition between papers and the rise of independent commercial journalism. Which also led to some problematic reporting.

In August of 1836 Sun readers woke to the first of several articles announcing a startling new discovery: “Great Astronomical Discovery Lately Made by Sir John Herschel.” Sir John had established a facility at Feldhausen, South Africa, where his telescope would take advantage of the clearer air there and be able to see those portions of the southern sky not visible from the north. According to the news report, the discoveries were made by an “immense telescope on an entirely new principle.”

Sir John, a respected scientist in his own right, was the son of Sir William Herschel, another respected astronomer, who, along with his sister, Caroline, studied solar bodies and discovered the planets of Saturn and Uranus. Sir William, however, was convinced that all planets were inhabited with intelligent beings.

Sir William, by this time had been long deceased, but Sir John had made the discovery, reported the Sun, by use of the above referenced telescope which “has discovered planets in other solar systems; has obtained a distinct view of objects in the moon, fully equal to that which the unaided eye commands of terrestrial objects at the distance of 100 yards; has affirmatively settled the question this satellite be inhabited, and by what orders of beings.”

The readers’ interests were piqued as the series continued. Especially when the paper began to describe things that were seen through the telescope, such as “a strange amphibious creature of a spherical form, which rolled with great velocity across the pebbly beach.” These descriptions were reportedly copied from a supplement of the Edinburgh Journal of Science.

This, naturally, stirred the competitive juices of rival editors who began to reprint the daily stories from the Sun. “Sir John has added a stock of knowledge to the present age that will immortalize his name,” one of the rival editors is quoted as saying.

The articles continued to tell of the topography of the moon’s surface, as well as the craters of the moon, huge amethyst crystals, waterways, plants, and other vegetation. Notable were such animals described as “goats, cranes, pelicans, bison with eye-flaps of skin to shield their eyes from the sun, and tailless beaver.”

As the series moved to a conclusion, the paper described the inhabitants of the moon: as unicorns and “furry, winged men and women, resembling bats, [who] could fly.”

The series ended with a report that the magnificent telescope that allowed man to actually see the surface of the moon in such great detail was destroyed by a freak accident that caused the suspension of the observations. Apparently the telescope was so powerful that the sun caused the telescope to burst into flames and burn.

Well, seemingly the world went crazy as the stories were re-published throughout the country, which took some heat off the current political question of the day: slavery. To follow up, a team of scientists from Yale, who could not find copies of the original Edinburgh Journal of Science articles in the Yale library, traveled to New York to examine the original reports that Sir John had filed and to make its own investigation.

The bubble soon burst when Richard Adams Locke, the author of the series, had one too many with a reporter from another paper and spilled the secret that he had made up the entire series. Word soon spread and other papers castigated the Sun whose readers never seemed too excited about the hoax and took it all in stride. In fact, the Sun’s circulation, which had started growing with the publication of the first installment, continued to grow.

The hoax did cause one piece of collateral damage. Edgar Allan Poe had started writing a fictional tale, “The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall,” for the Southern Literary Messenger. Poe called Locke’s effort “the greatest hit in the way of sensation — of merely popular sensation — ever made by any similar fiction either in America or Europe.”

Poe left his own story unfinished.

At first even Sir John Herschel was amused by the hoax, saying that it was much more exciting than his real observations. However, over time he did express annoyance at repeated questions from people who believed the hoax was real.

The Sun went on to be one of the most distinguished newspapers of its era. And just as a footnote to the story, after the Civil War a man named Charles Dana acquired partial ownership of the Sun, and became its managing editor. One day in September of 1897 Dana received a letter to the editor from an eight-year-old girl named Virginia O’Hanlon.

In her letter she said that her dad told her she could believe anything that appeared in the Sun. Dana gave the letter to one of his veteran journalists, Francis Pharcellus Church, whose epic answer, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” stands as an epic of American journalism.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday morning on Faith On Trial at IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

District of Columbia Won't Conduct Autopsies on 5 Babies Brutally Killed in Late-Term Abortions - LifeNews.com

District of Columbia Won't Conduct Autopsies on 5 Babies Brutally Killed in Late-Term Abortions - LifeNews.com: Yesterday, shocking images of five babies killed in late-term abortions were released that showed the brutal reality what happens to unborn children who are killed in legal late-term abortions in America. The babies killed in the abortions were reportedly killed at the Washington Surgi-Center, which advertises late-term abortions at “27 plus weeks of pregnancy” – […]

Religion Clause: Pew Survey On Attitudes Toward Religious Exemption...

Religion Clause: Pew Survey On Attitudes Toward Religious Exemption...: Yesterday the Pew Research Center released the results of its American Trends Panel survey on attitudes toward COVID-19 mandates and claims ...

Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Anti-Barrett

By Steven H. Aden, the American Life League 

To anyone who read or heard the opening statement of now-Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett a year-and-a-half ago, an odd sense of deja vu may have crept in while watching Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson deliver hers to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Monday afternoon. 

Jackson’s statement, in structure, style, and verbiage, is strikingly similar to Barrett’s, so much so that one could be forgiven for thinking that she and her advisers thought it wiser to play against type than to throw raw meat to Demand Justice and other abortion activists groups who were responsible for putting her in that seat. Jackson’s opening statement wove a personal narrative invoking patriotism, faith, and family routinely. She referred to the United States as an “incredible country” and a “great nation,” and she promised to work to support the “grand experiment of American democracy.” 

“I hope that you will see how much I love our country and the Constitution, and the rights that make us free,” she gushed. Jackson, whose religious views have been opaque to date, spoke frequently of “gratitude”, and her “faith” that “sustains me at this moment,” even sounding an Evangelical note in saying, “I can honestly say that my life has been blessed beyond measure.” 

Jackson played hard on “the ties that bind” family and community as well, reflecting, “My parents taught me that, unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer, such that if I worked hard and believed in myself, in America I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be.” 

Jackson mentioned that her parents had been married for 54 years (she herself has been married for 25), and gave shout-outs to members of her family in the audience, including her brother who volunteered for the U.S. Army in the wake of the September 11th attacks and served two tours of duty in the Middle East. As the presumptive second working mother on the current Court after Barrett (although Sandra Day O’Connor beat both of them to that honor), Jackson took another page from the Barrett playbook by saying to her two daughters, “Girls, I know it has not been easy as I have tried to navigate the challenges of juggling my career and motherhood. And I fully admit that I did not always get the balance right. But I hope that you have seen that with hard work, determination, and love, it can be done.” 

Jackson even professed commitment to judicial restraint, the cardinal virtue of legal conservatism, promising, “I know that my role as a judge is a limited one—that the constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. And I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.” 

Jackson was asked about her approach to interpretation during the hearing on her confirmation to the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia. She replied, “I do not have a judicial philosophy per se, other than to apply the same method of thorough analysis to every case, regardless of the parties.” 

A “method” that emphasizes uniformity regardless of the identity of the parties involved can certainly be laudable, but only if that method is sound.  But one suspects that in her case, a professed reliance on “method” is verbal sleight of hand for judicial activism. Jackson illuminated her form of pragmatic “methodology” by quoting a statement by Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she is poised to take on the court. Breyer said at his nomination, “What is law supposed to do, seen as a whole? It is supposed to allow all people—all people—to live together in a society, where they have so many different views, so many different needs, to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better, so that they can work productively together.” 

Jackson’s judicial pragmatism may pose as a “neutral method” of interpretation, but in fact it’s a species of utilitarian thought that seeks to set aside historically-based “presuppositions” that are thought to burden the originalist approach in favor of asking “what works for people.” In so doing, pragmatism substitutes the judgment of the court—or of five members of the Supreme Court—for the judgment of the Framers of the constitutional provision or the drafters of the statute who in fact spoke for the People they represented. 

According to a 2007 biography of Justice Clarence Thomas, Jackson says she thought of Thomas as she and the Justice shared lunch (presumably when she was clerking for Justice Breyer), reflecting, “I don’t understand you. You sound like my parents. You sound like the people I grew up with.” But, she told Thomas’s biographers, “the lessons he tended to draw from the experiences of the segregated South seemed to be different than those of everybody I know.” 

Why did Jackson not recognize the lessons Thomas took from a shared formative experience? One can only speculate. Perhaps his upbringing was harder, as it involved poverty and a broken home—as Jackson’s did not? Perhaps because for Thomas, nothing was received as a “privilege”, but earned by hard work. Jackson grew up in an intact family—a credit to her parents—and thereby enjoyed economic and social privileges that Thomas did not. As Thomas reflects in interviews in the biographical documentary about his life, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” he came to believe that those he grew up with in poverty gained little benefit from the heavy hand of government intrusion—the kind of social policies that Jackson’s public educator parents likely accepted as Gospel. When what matters to you as a judge is what works for people, the people who serve as your point of reference make all the difference. 

Judge Jackson’s brand of judicial pragmatism is an outmoded interpretive framework, because most judges, including those on the Supreme Court, came to see that it only reinforced populist political views of interpretation, not the Framers’ or lawmakers’ purpose in crafting law on behalf of the people they represented. 

“We are all originalists now,” Justice Elena Kagan once said, foreshadowing Jackson’s new-found pretension to constitutionalism of that same stripe. Here’s hoping that if confirmed, Justice Jackson will have ears to hear the wisdom of more senior members of the Court, and that there will be many more lunchtime conversations that turn on lived experience.