It’s not hyperbolic to suggest that the Trump v Barbara decision is one of the worst all-time SCOTUS decisions in terms of direct impact on the American people, on the same level as Roe v Wade and Obergefell. Enshrining an interpretation granting citizenship to the child of any immigrant who gives birth on the magic soil of America dilutes the citizenship of actual Americans in favor of Chinese nationals and third-world invaders. All of this was plainly obvious before the ruling, but SCOTUS nevertheless persisted in its girlboss-fueled suicidal empathy.
The Supreme Court is no stranger to bad decisions, and the entire extra-constitutional process of judicial review has proven to be the greatest threat to the liberty of a free people throughout America’s 250 years of self-government. That the US Constitution is subject to the binding interpretation of a small body of people is not what America’s Founders intended for the weakest branch of government.
But the Christian reactions have been compromising to say the least.
Antifa dweeb, Eli McGowan, an anti-Christian Nationalist who now has bylines in Christian Post celebrated the ruling:
The Supreme Court today rightly rejected (6-3) the Executive Order that attempted to overturn the Constitutional right of birthright citizenship. SCOTUS correctly saw this as a matter for Constitutional Amendment to handle, not executive fiat, as the 14th is unambiguous.
His cause for celebration cites English Common Law which does not hold to birthright citizenship.
A major storyline is Amy Coney Barrett’s decision. Most foresaw that the Trump-appointed liberal justice would vote for birthright citizenship, in part because she’s a woman and also because she has adopted Haitian children. Andrew Walker, a professional cuckvangelical professor of public theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and editor at World Magazine, decided to whiteknight for Barrett.
Disagree with Justice Barrett’s jurisprudence all you want—that’s your prerogative. But discrediting her reasoning by appeal to her sex or her status as an adoptive mother—as some on the populist right now do—is a category error. It’s also textbook Bulverism, C.S. Lewis’s name for the trick of explaining why someone is wrong without first showing that they are wrong: “you only think that because you’re a woman.”
A legal argument is sound or unsound on its own terms. The sex of the one making it has no bearing on whether it tracks with the truth—the intellect’s apprehension of reality is not indexed by sex. And the human intellect, male or female, is equally capable of apprehending truth. Truth corresponds to human nature’s fittedness to reality as such, not truth qua sex. That sex carries real teleological weight for vocation and embodiment is true and beside the point here.
The adoptive-mother line is worse because it isn’t even about her reasoning. It infers bias from biography. A judge’s conclusions stand or fall on the law’s construction (for good or for ill), not on the shape of her family. Attack the argument, or concede you don’t have one.
I’m no expert on the Constitution and immigration. Justice Barrett could be wrong—if so, make that argument on the basis of text and history—not sex. Doing so on the basis of sex denies the ontological and epistemological equality of the sexes as made in God’s image.
Walker’s second-wave feminism is on full display here. There has never been a good woman Supreme Court Justice because women are not made for the job, in the same way that they are not meant to be pastors, football coaches, or five star generals. But going into the adoptive parent able, this would far be from the first time a judge’s personal relationships have compromised their decision making, whether it was a pro-abortion justice thinking of his daughter or a judge with a gay family member.
Additionally, Walker naively presumes that this case landed on legal merit rather than political merit. The liberal justices, to borrow a phrase from Ketanji Brown-Jackson, understood their assignment.
Deafening Silence
Franklin Graham touted the Supreme Court’s decision on transvestites in women’s sports but was nowhere to be found on birthright citizenship. Tony Perkins, likewise, was silent on this front while praising the court’s slam dunk decision on sports. Even Lenow, the new head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, is missing in action on the most important ruling of the day, but it’s not because he isn’t paying attention. Again, his glorified blog has been plenty active, commenting on SCOTUS decisions.
Conclusions
The Supreme Court’s decision that citizenship means being born on magic soil is a 5th Commandment violation for everything America’s forefathers built and fought for. Like Esau, it squanders the real birthright, all so that liberals can exploit third world mentalities to achieve political gain.
But there is still hope. What Amy Coney Barrett and the other women on the Supreme Court meant for evil, God can still use for good.
Powered by RedCircle
