"Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation" is the title of a book by my beloved theology professor and friend, the late William C. Placher. It is also now the title of this blog, a place where I hope to add a Christian voice -- God knows, not "the" Christian voice, but "a" Christian voice and not just any old voice, but a distinctly Christian voice -- to the pluralistic conversation going on about just about everything.
Search This Blog
"So-called" Judge Robart?
This clip is of the United States Senate voting, on June 17, 2004, on President George W. Bush's nomination of James L. Robart to be the U.S. District Judge for the Western District at Washington. Judge Robart is the one who issued a ruling yesterday that temporarily blocks one of the Executive Orders on immigration and refugees.
As an exercise in democracy, watch the clip. It's only 51 seconds long. Wait for it -- notice whose vote was the last affirmative vote.
Note what the final vote count was.
After watching, ask yourself: are there any other steps in our democracy that necessary to confirming a District judge?
After answering those questions, ask yourself:
Why would the person currently holding the office of President of the United States refer to Robart as a "so-called" judge?
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump wrote.
Recall that "so-called" means something is false...ostensible...supposed...not actually the case.
Keep in mind the "so-called" phrase is in reference to the judge -- the office or position of judge itself, and is not about the substance of the ruling.
(In my opinion, calling the judge's ruling a "so-called ruling" -- you know, calling the legitimacy or accuracy of the legal ruling into question -- would have been fair game. Rough and tumble politics and all.)
But that is not what is going on here: what is being called into question is the legitimacy of the judge himself.
Please, ask yourself:
What is the intention of a President calling a judge who reverses one of his orders a "so-called" judge?
Is it unreasonable to conclude this is an attempt, deliberately or not, by the President of the United States to undermine people's trust in this Judge, and therefore in the American judicial system, particularly when the attempt is coupled with an accusation that the judge's ruling "takes law-enforcement away from our country"?
What is the end game of this Administration there?
Are there United States Senators, other judges, or conservative Republicans who are alarmed by this?
No one can -- and I certainly don't want to try -- to unpack every tweet the person currently holding the office of President of the United States sends out.
No one has the time to respond to every one of his tweets on just one issue. Although I wish I had the time on the issue of the Executive Orders recently issued in regard to refugees.
But every so often I feel I MUST respond to at least SOME of those tweets, lest I grow accustomed to them as normal. And I refuse to normalize the abnormal.
Take one of Saturday's tweets, for example: in response to Judge Robart's temporarily stopping an Executive Orders, there was this:
“What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?”
Let's unpack: "What is our country coming to..." Does that lament sound familiar? Ask yourself: who often says it, where do you hear it from the most? Is it a positive, hopeful line of thinking? I wil…