Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
‘The Supreme Court’ doesn’t mean abortion — it means Shelby County

‘The Supreme Court’ doesn’t mean abortion — it means Shelby County

Last updated on: August 9, 2016 at 6:01 pm by Fred Clark

‘The Supreme Court’ doesn’t mean abortion — it means Shelby County 2016-08-09T18:01:20-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Messiah College historian John Fea cuts to the heart of the matter of “The No. 1 reason evangelicals still put their hopes in Trump.” It’s the Supreme Court.*

This is why white evangelicals will vote for Trump. It’s why they would vote for any Republican. And for every Republican. Always.

White evangelical preachers explain the partisan essence of their faith at an “Operation Save America” rally this summer in Wichita. (Photo via Right Wing Watch, click through for full article.)

Granted, the logic of this is a bit fuzzy. Concern for Supreme Court justices can explain a pattern of voting for presidential candidates — those who might one day appoint such justices. And it can explain a pattern of voting for candidates for the U.S. Senate — where justices are confirmed or rejected (or, if the president nominating them is black, just ignored forever). But this preoccupation with the make-up of the Supreme Court makes less sense as an explanation for hyper-partisan voting by white evangelicals for members of the House, for state legislatures, county commissioners, dog catchers and registers of wills.

Still, Fea ably summarizes the background and the apparent logic of this notion:

… many of Trump’s evangelical supporters are still using the 40-year-old political playbook written by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other founders of the so-called Christian right.

There is not a lot of nuance or complexity in this playbook. In fact, its approach to presidential politics is quite simple: Vote for the candidate who opposes abortion and will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that lifted most government-based restrictions on the practice.

Though we have heard a lot of talk in the last decade about the Christian right’s steady decline as more younger evangelicals expand their Christian vision of politics to include the alleviation of poverty, the protection of the environment, the fight against slave trafficking and the pursuit of racial reconciliation, their parents still believe abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom and opposition to LGBT rights should be at the center of an evangelical political witness. And the fate of these issues rests on the Supreme Court.

This is why prominent evangelicals such as theologian Wayne Grudem, author Eric Metaxas, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. and Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress have told their followers that a vote for Trump is a moral vote.

We could interrogate that a bit more — exploring what other things Grudem, Metaxas, Falwell Jr. and Jeffress have in common. But let that pass for now.

We’ll also want to get back to the underlying logic of this Supreme-Court-Above-All voting playbook to explore the anti-abortion premise of it. It’s internally consistent with that premise, but the problem is that nothing else these folks do is internally consistent with that premise. Like I said, we’ll get back to that later.

For now, let’s just discuss the effect of this voting strategy. Because the best that can be said for it is that it hasn’t worked.

The best that can be said for this white evangelical voting strategy is that it intended to produce an overturn of Roe v. Wade (and of Lawrence v. Kansas, and of Griswold v. Connecticut, and of Engel v. Vitale, and of …). But instead of that, what it produced was the Roberts Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, ripping out the guts of the Voting Rights Act.

Scott Lemiuex summarizes the indefensible rot of that Shelby County decision:

The Roberts Court’s evisceration of the most important civil-rights legislation passed since Reconstruction was its lowest moment. The impact of the decision to reverse a key part of the Voting Rights Act is anti-democratic, allowing numerous illegal voter-suppression schemes to go into effect, and making it much more difficult to stop them. But what makes Shelby County especially egregious is its threadbare legal reasoning, which can’t even be called “constitutional law.” The Constitution unambiguously gives Congress the power to enforce the 15th Amendment. The “equal sovereignty of the states” doctrine that the chief justice used to trump Congress’s explicit powers is a Roberts invention, and he has yet to identify any constitutional basis or Supreme Court precedent for it. Even setting aside his failure to base it on the text of the Constitution, Roberts’s argument — that Congress once had the relevant power but no longer does because the statute was too effective at protecting the rights it was intended to — defies logic. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a dissent that gets the better of the Roberts majority opinion on every point, this argument makes as much sense as “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Again, this is the best that can be said of white evangelicals’ Supreme Court voting strategy: That it aimed to repeal Roe v. Wade and wound up repealing the Voting Rights Act instead.

But that may not be completely accurate. It may be worse than that. Particularly if we consider the actual history of the religious right that has been promoting this strategy so successfully over the past 40 years. That religious right didn’t form as a response to Roe v. Wade. It formed as a response to Green v. Connally — as a backlash against federal efforts to restrict the tax-benefits enjoyed by segregationist religious schools.

In other words, the repeal of the Voting Rights Act wasn’t an accidental side effect of the white evangelical strategy of Supreme-Court-based voting. It was the intended, deliberate result of that.

But for folks like Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Roberson, Robert Jeffress, et. al., there’s still work to be done. They want white evangelicals to vote for Donald Trump based on the Supreme Court because they need that Supreme Court to keep pressing their agenda.

After all, Brown v. Board of Education is still on the books.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* As I was writing this post, Donald Trump weighed in with further comments on why the selection of Supreme Court justices should be the paramount concern in this election:

Republican Donald Trump has sparked anger by suggesting his supporters could stop his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by exercising their gun rights.

He said that Mrs. Clinton would put liberal justices on the Supreme Court if she wins the presidency in November, threatening gun ownership rights.

Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, Mr. Trump hinted that gun rights advocates could stop her taking power.

To be fair, in context, it’s not clear that Trump was directly advocating that someone shoot his opponent. He may instead have been suggesting that people shoot liberal justices or anyone nominated to the courts by a President Clinton. Or, perhaps, he was simply suggesting that his supporters shoot ordinary citizens that may plan on voting for Clinton.

Previous Post

August 9, 2016

Sinister rumors connect Hillary Clinton with tree-planting in Malawi

Next Post

August 10, 2016 Looking forward to happier times

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary trade route in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Silk Road Mediterranean Route Spice Route Royal Road