The court evangelicals continue to stand by Trump’s election fraud claims

Yesterday COVID-19 cases in the United States topped the 15 million mark. One of those cases is Trump election fraud lawyer and court evangelical Jenna Ellis.

Joe Biden introduced his public health team. Donald Trump gave a COVID press conference, took credit for the COVID vaccine, and claimed victory over the virus. And then he claimed that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Trump is still fighting what he believes to be election fraud. Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear a last-minute Pennsylvania GOP request to overturn the commonwealth’s election results. The Supreme Court rejected the request in one sentence: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court was denied.” There was no dissent. This means that Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett all rejected the application. Just a reminder: Trump nominated Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett.

Today Donald Trump retweeted this:

I have no idea what this tweet means in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court’s decision.

So what are Trump’s most loyal evangelical followers–the court evangelicals–saying:

Biden misspoke today and quickly correct himself. That is not good enough for Charlie Kirk, founder of Liberty University’s Falkirk Center:

Charlie is willing to go down with the ship. He is going to build the rest of his career on the foundation of Trumpism:

Here is Ryan Helfenbein, the director of the Liberty University Falkirk Center:

The Founding Fathers said that if the people got too much liberty they would cease to sacrifice for the common good of the nation and the republic would collapse.

Court evangelical journalist David Brody interviewed GOP national spokesperson Liz Harrington on his program “Just the News.”

Jim Garlow is still holding his “election integrity” prayer meetings.

Yesterday Eric Metaxas spent about 20 minutes talking about the online sale of his books. Then he moved into a segment on the upcoming Washington D.C. Jericho March on December 12. Pro-Trump evangelicals will march seven times around the U.S. Capitol Building and blow a shofar–just like the Israelites did with the city of Jericho in the Old Testament book of Joshua, chapter six. Metaxas believes that America experienced “every kind of possible fraud” in this election. He believes he is a modern-day Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He claims God will judge everyone who does not speak-up against election fraud.

Interesting tweet from Trump’s spiritual adviser:

Paula retweeted Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany yesterday:

James Dobson is praying for a GOP win in Georgia:

Franklin Graham is tweeting an election fraud piece from the Alt-right Breitbart News. He believes “forces of evil” are at work:

Thoughts on Samuel Alito’s recent speech to the Federalist Society

Some say Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito got too political in his recent speech to the Federalist Society. Others say his speech merely repeated arguments he has made in formal Supreme Court decisions.

Both sides of this debate are correct.

Watch:

Several of you have asked me to comment on the speech. So here goes:

First, Alito’s lecture defends free and open public discourse. He wants a country in which we respect “rational, civil speech on important subjects even if we do not agree with what the speaker has to say.” I appreciate Alito’s use of the word “rational” here. We should respect free speech that is based on facts, truth, and good science. This kind of speech is essential to the health of the republic, but we are not doing a very good job at supporting it. (Again, I point you to the statement on free speech published recently at Harper’s).

Second, Alito is correct to suggest that “tolerance for opposing views” is in “short supply” in the “broader academic community.” I completely agree with this. Some of us experienced this intolerance over the summer when we dared to suggest that the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic (SHEAR) mishandled a paper presentation by historian Daniel Feller.

Third, Alito argues that the pandemic has “resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.” It is hard to argue with this as a statement of fact. We have had to curb our liberties in order to stay safe. But unlike Alito, I do not see a major problem with this. I think one can make a strong case from American history that there are times when we have placed duty over liberty and the common good over individual rights. The pandemic is one of those cases.

Fourth, Alito takes a shot at the progressive commitment to “expertise.” He is especially upset with the way governors use executive power to enforce pandemic restrictions that reflect what the scientists (experts) are telling them. If I understand him correctly, he believes that legislative bodies, not governors, should make decisions about COVID-19 restrictions.

Fair enough. But in a pandemic like this one it seems as if governors, in consultation with scientific experts, should be the primary decision makers. I am going to sound like an elite founding father here, but I wonder if we really want legislative assemblies–the people– making decisions in a pandemic, especially if they are not in close contact with experts who know how to handle such situations. If some of these state legislatures got their way back in March and April 2020 it is likely that even more people would have died from this virus. I am thankful for the work of governors such as Andrew Cuomo, Gretchen Whitmer, Mike DeWine, Tom Wolf, and Phil Murphy who are leading their respective states through this major health crisis. Let’s remember that these governors are also elected officials.

Fifth, Alito is worried about the future of religious liberty in the United States. He is right to do so. Alito offers three cases that concern him: Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania; Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman (Ralph’s Pharmacy); and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Jack Philips).

The Little Sisters of the Poor should be allowed to do whatever they want to do with their healthcare plan. If they refuse to provide contraception to their employees because of deeply-held religious beliefs, they should be permitted to do so under the First Amendment.

I am also sympathetic to Alito’s position (and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts) in the Ralph’s Pharmacy case. If I owned a pharmacy I would have a moral objection, because of my pro-life beliefs, to selling morning-after pills.

What about the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case? (The Court defended cake maker Jack Philips with a 7-2 decision on narrow grounds that did not get to the heart of the real religious liberty issues at stake). For me there seems to be a difference between selling an abortifacient and baking a cake for a wedding. But I realize other Christians might think differently and I want to respect their right to do that.

All of Alito’s religious liberty arguments in his Federalist Society speech make sense to me. I appreciate how he understands these issues in the context of efforts to create a more “inclusive” or pluralist society. John Inazu’s Confident Pluralism is the best book I have read on the subject. In terms of legislation, I recommend taking a look at the Fairness for All Act.

Sixth, Alito connects his thoughts on COVID-19 restrictions to his thoughts on religious liberty issues. Over the last several months religious conservatives have complained that Nevada allowed casinos to stay open, but limited the number of people permitted in churches. I am once again with Alito here. Why were casinos privileged over churches? I would argue, contra John MacArthur, that both should have been closed or restricted.

Seventh, Alito argues that COVID-19 restrictions have curbed free speech. He predicts that anyone who says “marriage is a union between one man and one woman” will soon be labeled a bigot. I am not aware of cases where the free speech of someone who believes in traditional marriage has been threatened, but I am sure there are examples out there. (It is also unclear how Alito’s concerns about this issue are related to COVID-19). I hope Alito’s prediction here is wrong, but I don’t think it is.

It is worth noting that not all people who believe in traditional marriage are homophobic or oppose the legality of LGBTQ marriages. (In the same way, people can be pro-life on abortion and still care about women’s health or even oppose the overturning of Roe v. Wade). Most defenders of traditional marriage want society to respect the rights of institutions–churches and schools come immediately to mind–whose members have deeply-held religious views on the matter.

All of this makes me wonder if someone who upholds a traditional view of marriage could land could land a job at public or non-religious college or university today. Probably not. I also imagine that my general support of Alito in this post would eliminate me from consideration for such a position at a college or university. I made a similar suggestion in this 2016 piece at Aeon. But I digress…

In the end, I am persuaded by much, but not all, of what Alito had to say in this speech.

Let’s see how the court evangelicals are handling Trump’s loss

The election was ten days ago. Joe Biden was the winner. After January 20, 2021 the court evangelicals will no longer have access to the court. Let’s see how they are handling things.

Eric Metaxas is still doing prayer meetings. He won’t say that he and his group is praying for signs of voter fraud that would give Trump a victory in the election, but that is essentially what is happening at these meetings. The guy with the red, white, and blue shofar will apparently be there. Metaxas continues to say that Fox News is in the Biden camp. He claims he was not allowed to talk about his “Donald the Caveman” books because there is a character in the book named after George Soros and Soros is now working with Fox News to remove Trump. You can’t make this stuff up. You can watch here.

Metaxas is also promoting this piece on his Facebook page.

I honestly don’t know what to make of this tweet from one of the most divisive court evangelicals. James Robison is the guy who believes Satan brought coronavirus to America to prevent Donald Trump from leading a spiritual revival in the country:

Jack Graham is holding out hope:

Back in 2016, Graham was pretty certain about God’s will in the election. Why wait when God has spoken?:

Is Paula White giving advice to the nation here?:

Gary Bauer is going down with the ship:

Robert Jeffress seems to be moving on. He is now talking about religious liberty and a recent speech by Samuel Alito:

How should we interpret such “hope” in the context of Jeffress’s public rhetoric on Fox News and elsewhere? Frankly, I am not sure what Jeffress is talking about here. I may have had a clearer sense of what he would have meant 10 or 15 years ago, but no longer.

Jim Garlow still sees this election as a “cosmic clash” between “good and evil.”

Jack Hibbs is demanding a recount in California:

Lance Wallnau is hoping and praying for a Trump victory:

He is also hosting a Facebook show called “The plot to steal the presidency.”

Wallnau is also a fan of patriotic education. He sees it as a “mental health” issue:

Court evangelical and founder of Liberty University’s Falkirk Center Charlie Kirk just put postal workers in the bullseye. He did the same thing to Harvard professor Danielle Allen:

I honestly don’t know what the Falkirk Center at Liberty University means when they say “proclaim the Gospel.” I am assuming “proclaim the Gospel when you vote” means voting for Donald Trump.

When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, context matters. But whose context?

Context

Earlier today, I published two posts on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on LGBTQ rights. The first post addressed the politics of the decision and what it means for white evangelical support for Donald Trump. The second post dealt with the religious liberty issues at stake. I encourage you to look at them to get up to speed. Here and here.

In this third post, I want to think historically about both the majority and dissenting opinions.

Over at Think, Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, explains the conservative judicial philosophy Justice Neil Gorsuch employed in coming to his decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and the other consolidated cases. Title VII of the Act forbids “discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex , or national origin.” The debate, of course, is over the meaning of the word “sex.” Gorsuch interpreted “sex” to cover LGBTQ rights.

In another piece, Levinson describes Gorsuch’s textualism. She writes,

Typically, conservative judges and lawyers adhere to the idea that in determining the meaning of words in a law, you look only at those words. You do not look at the context in which the law was passed, or congressional intent. This is called textualism.

No historian would treat a text this way. Frankly, I am not entirely convinced that Levinson offers an accurate description of how most textualists interpret a text. As we will see below, it is certainly not how Justice Samuel Alito or Justice Brett Kavanaugh understand textualism.

But historical context can also be a tricky thing. Gorsuch appears to have ignored it. He writes in his majority opinion:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination of the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statue give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

A couple of quick observations about these two paragraphs:

  1. Does the meaning of a word really exist outside of its historical context? Are we to assume that all words have universal meanings across time? A historian would answer both questions with an emphatic “no.” Historians do not subscribe to the kind of textualism that Gorsuch describes here.
  2. Is Gorsuch correct when he says that the “those who adopted the Civil Rights Act” could never have imagined it being applied to the gay community? This is an honest question. I am assuming Gorsuch is correct, but I am not up to speed on the scholarship here.

In their dissenting opinions, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh also appealed to the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but they interpreted the meaning of the word “sex” in historical context.

Here is Alito:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of the five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex [and] national origin. Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list.

Alito argues that unless the document specifically says “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” the Civil Rights Act could not have encompassed these things. He suggests that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” do not fall under the category of “sex.”

Alito challenges Gorsuch’s textualism with the ideas of the late Antonin Scalia:

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion  is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated–the theory that courts should “update” old statues so that they better refelct the current values of society.”

Alito argues that we need to understand the meaning of the word “sex” in the context of the 1960s. He writes:

Determined searching has not found a single dictionary from that time that defined “sex” to mean sexual orientation, gender identity, or “transgender” status. In all those dictionaries, the primary definition of “sex” was essentially the same as that in the then-most recent edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1953): “[o]ne of the two divisions of organisms formed on the distinction of male and female.”

Alito continues:

Thus when textualism is properly understood, it calls for an examination of the social context in which a statue was enacted because this may have an important bearing on what its words were understood to mean at the time of enactment. Textualists do not read statues as if they were messages picked up by a powerful radio telescope from a distant and utterly unknown civilization. Statutes consist of communications between members of a particular linguistic community, one that existed in a particular place and at a particular time, and these communications must therefore be interpreted as they were understood by that community at that time.

For this reason, it is imperative to consider how Americans in 1964 would have understood Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of sex. To get a picture of this, we may imagine this scene. Suppose that, while Title VII was under consideration in Congress, a group of average Americans decided to read the text of the bill with aim of writing or calling their representatives in Congress and conveying their approval or disapproval. What would these ordinary citizens have taken “discrimination because of sex” to mean? Would they have thought that this language prohibited discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity?

The answer could not be clearer. In 1964, ordinary Americans reading the text of Title VII would not have dreamed that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination between sexual orientation, much less gender identity. The ordinary meaning of discrimination because of “sex” was discrimination because of a person’s biological sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Alito is writing like a historian here. He wants to understand the 1964 Civil Rights Act in context. This is historical thinking 101. But while judges use historical thinking skills, they are not historians. They are tasked with applying the past to the present.

Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent is shorter, but it also draws on historical context. Here is a taste:

As to common parlance, few in 1964 (or today) would describe a firing because of sexual orientation as a firing because of sex. As commonly understood, sexual orientation discrimination is distinct from , and not a form of, sex discrimination.

He adds:

[The majority opinion rewrites history. Seneca Falls was not Stonewall. The women’s rights movement was not (and is not) the gay rights movement, although many people obviously support or participate in both. So to think that sexual orientation discrimination is just a form of sex discrimination is…a mistake of history and sociology.

Again, any historian would have to agree, to some extent, with Kavanaugh’s logic. We try to get our students to see that Seneca Falls and Stonewall were indeed different movements in the same way that the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution were fundamentally different “revolutions.” We resist the social scientist’s tendency to clump all “revolutions” or “reform movements” together. Each movement took place in a particular time and place amid a different set of circumstances.

At the same time, we also treat Seneca and Stonewall as part of a larger story of American reform. It is appropriate, at times, to talk about common themes–such as the appeal to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence–that drive this larger and broader story.

But, again, historians are not justices. We are not primarily in the business of telling people what to do with the information we provide and the skills we teach. Kavanaugh was a history major at Yale. During his years studying history, he no doubt learned about Seneca Falls and Stonewall. He also learned to think critically,  make an argument, understand historical context, and reflect on the many ways the past relates to the present. He is now using those skills, guided by a particular judiciary philosophy, to make Supreme Court decisions. His professors at Yale taught him these skills, but they could not tell him how to use them in service to the law. (Although I am imagining that some of them tried).

What strikes me about yesterday’s Supreme Court decision is the fact that it played out, at least in the opinions, as a debate over how to interpret Antonin Scalia’s judicial philosophy . This happened because Chief Justice John Roberts assigned the majority opinion to Gorsuch rather than to one of the Court’s liberal justices.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, I imagine it might have also appealed to historical context, but in a much broader way.  Levinson suggests what such an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might look like in this case if one of the liberal justices had weighed-in:

Liberal judges and lawyers, however, generally believe that it is appropriate to look beyond the words of the law and at the history and context around the law. But there was no such thing as sexual orientation protections in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, so “sex” in the history and context of the law was not meant to apply to LGBT Americans.

As a matter of policy, LGBT rights should be situated clearly within the larger struggle for civil rights, and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation  should be outlawed in every workplace in the nation.

Again, context is tricky and this case shows that much of the law rests on how much weight a given justice gives to this important “C” of historical thinking.

George Washington Book Prize Finalists Chosen

alito

I got to meet Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito at the 2012 George Washington Book Prize Gala at Mount Vernon.  My Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction was one of three finalists that year.

And here they are:

Chestertown, MD—In celebration of George Washington’s 285th birthday, seven books published in 2016 by the country’s most prominent historians have been named finalists for the George Washington Prize. The annual award recognizes the past year’s best-written works on the nation’s founding era, especially those that have the potential to advance broad public understanding of early American history.

Created in 2005 by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and Washington College, the $50,000 George Washington Prize is one of the nation’s largest and most notable literary awards, and this year’s finalists include past Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winners.

The finalists’ books combine depth of scholarship and broad expanse of inquiry with vivid prose that exposes the complexities of our founding narrative. Through compelling storytelling, the authors introduce readers to citizen soldiers and statesmen, artists and frontiersmen, heroes and traitors, loyalists and rebels—the ordinary, the ambitious, and the exceptional men and women who, in the chaos and contradictions of revolution, imagined a different world order and gave shape to a new nation.

Written to engage a wide public audience, the books provide a “go-to” reading list for anyone interested in learning more about George Washington, his contemporaries, and the drama of the revolutionary founding of the United States of America.

The 2017 George Washington Prize finalists are:

● T.H. Breen, George Washington’s Journey: The President Forges a New Nation (Simon and Schuster)

● Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter S. Onuf, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination (Liveright Publishing)

● Jane Kamensky, A Revolution in Color: The World of John Singleton Copley (W.W. Norton)

● Michael J. Klarman, The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution(Oxford University Press)

● Mark Edward Lender and Garry Wheeler Stone, Fatal Sunday: George Washington, the Monmouth Campaign, and the Politics of Battle (University of Oklahoma Press)

● Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution (Viking) 

● Alan Taylor, American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 (W.W. Norton)

A distinguished jury comprised of notable historians David Preston, Kathleen DuVal, and Nick Bunker, selected the finalists from a field of nearly 60 books. The winner of the 2017 prize will be announced, and all finalists recognized, at a black-tie gala on Thursday, May 25 at George Washington’s Mount Vernon. More information about the George Washington Prize is available at washcoll.edu/gwbookprize.

Hobby Lobby Wrap-Up

I am currently at work on a few hundred words on the Hobby Lobby case for the American Historical Associations Perspectives blog.  It will probably appear in a day or two.  

In the meantime, here are some of interesting takes on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision:
Emma Green at The Atlantic: “The Supreme Court Isn’t Waging a War on Women in Hobby Lobby.
Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Church is “elated.”
John Dilulio at Brookings: “Hobby Lobby: The Real Religious Exemption Fight if yet to Come”
It might be good at this point to return to Patrick Deneen, “Even if Hobby Lobby Wins, We Lose.”  This is the best think I have read on the case, hands down.
Robert George at First Things: “What Hobby Lobby Means
Michelle Goldberg at The Nation:  “Alito’s ‘Hobby Lobby’ Opinion is Dangerous and Discriminatory”
David Gans at The New Republic:  “The Roberts Court Thinks Corporations Have More Rights Than You Do”
Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker: “The Trap in the Supreme Court’s ‘Narrow’ Decisions
The History Guys at Backstory on corporate personhood.