What Ahmaud Arbery’s life and death teach us about our longing for justice
By / Jan 7

Today, the three men convicted of Ahmaud Arbery’s murder were sentenced to life in prison. Arbery’s family has waited almost two years for justice for their son after Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and Roddy Bryan mercilessly chased down Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, and fatally shot him while he was running in a Georiga subdivision. This horrible act of violence rightly brought national outrage. 

Arbery’s death renewed calls for racial justice and revived painful memories of racial violence across the South through the painful era of Jim Crow and beyond. Thankfully, unlike so many cases of the lynching and death of black men and women throughout America’s history, a jury of mostly white citizens reviewed the evidence and convicted the three men first, and then a judge handed down just sentences for taking the life of a fellow man.

Rejoicing and lament 

It is appropriate for Christians to both rejoice and lament in this moment. We can rejoice in the justice of the verdicts and sentences. It is right for these three men to be punished for their heinous racial crime that was perpetrated against an image-bearer of the Almighty. Our American system of earthly justice is far from perfect, but in this case, it brought about a just outcome. 

Yet, we should also lament the racial hatred that led to the death of Arbery, who was only jogging through a neighborhood. The guilty verdicts and life sentences, while correct, won’t bring back a son to his grieving parents; it won’t erase the pain they will likely feel for the rest of their lives. 

We should also lament the slow wheels of local justice in this case. When the shooting happened, local prosecutors declined to prosecute before a video leaked and provoked the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to investigate. The GBI then arrested the McMichaels before the case was transferred to the Cobb County District Attorney. 

Though America has come far in moving to uphold her promises of “all men created equal,” she has a ways to go. The weight of slavery and the legacy of Jim Crow haven’t exited quietly. They continue to haunt our nation. 

The Christian’s longing for justice 

Earthly justice hits at the heart of Christians for many reasons. We believe in the inherent dignity of every human being, knit with care and purpose by God in each womb (Psa. 139). We believe that every drop of innocent blood shed does not escape the watch of the Almighty (Gen. 4:10). Because of this, our hearts were provoked by a good kind of outrage, a demand for justice, when we watched the horrible video showing Arbery robbed of the breath of life.

This longing for justice is not unnatural and has been a feature of the human experience since the entrance of sin in the Garden, when human hearts were corrupted by the enemy and prone to turn in violence on fellow image-bearers (Gen. 3–4). And our imperfect and temporary models of earthly justice point us to a God of perfect justice, a God who turns no blind eyes to racism, hatred, and violence. 

Ultimately, our longing for evil to be reversed, for injustice to be made right, and our cries to “let justice roll on like a river” (Amos 5:24) will not be satisfied in any earthly court. Civil authorities are delegated the sword of justice by God (Rom. 13), but there is only one place where divine justice and wrath against evil was satisfied. It happened 2,000 years ago, on a lonely hill outside a backwater Roman province, as Roman soldiers carried out an unjust state execution of an innocent itinerant rabbi. There, Jesus, human and divine, bore the weight of every unjust act in the universe and the wrath of a holy God (2 Cor. 5:21). No sinful human can pay for their own sin, no matter how long the sentence, no matter how cruel the punishment. Only Jesus, the sin-bearer, can bear this weight. And only God can bring about perfect justice for those who won’t repent. 

And yet it was also in this moment when sin — lynchings, racism, violence, the shedding of innocent blood — and death were forever defeated. Jesus not only satisfies our longings for true justice but also defeats, through his death and resurrection, what creates injustice in the first place. The resurrected Jesus is pointing us toward a day without sin, tears, sorrow, and death (Rev. 21:4). Until, then, we work to make our societies more just, to make injustice less common, and to announce the verdict, “It is finished.” 

Update: Capitol Hill Baptist wins in District Court
By / Oct 10

Late Friday night, Oct. 9, Judge Trevor N. McFadden issued a memorandum opinion in Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, et al granting the church’s motion for injunctive relief. This opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a victory for both religious liberty and public health because it clarifies the government’s responsibility to honor these fundamental rights during the pandemic.

At the end of September, the Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) in Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking relief from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s current order regarding places of worship. The congregation is working to find a way to legally and safely gather outdoors for services in Washington during the ongoing pandemic. For more on the case, see this explainer.

It should be noted that the church has taken the public health precautions seriously. For months, meeting outside in Virginia, the church has followed all relevant public health guidance of wearing masks and keeping six feet distance between households during the service. CHBC, like the vast majority of churches throughout the nation, recognize the perils of this pandemic and honor the God-ordained responsibility of mayors and governors and federal officials to protect people from a dangerous virus.

Highlights from the court’s opinion

At this point in the church’s litigation, the court has heard oral arguments from both sides, reviewed the statement of interest submitted by the United States Department of Justice, and the various amicus briefs submitted by interested parties. The Friday night ruling granted the church a preliminary injunction which forbids the Mayor from prohibiting CHBC from conducting outdoor worship services in the District of Columbia with the precautions of masks and social-distancing. The preliminary injunction is in force until the case goes to a full trial, which could take longer than the pandemic will last, thus making the conflict moot. At this point, the District has 30 days to appeal the decision.

It is for the Church, not the District or this Court, to define for itself the meaning of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” Hebrews 10:25.” (quote from court ruling)

The following are highlights from Judge McFadden’s opinion, beginning with his explanation of the merits behind this religious liberty victory:

“The Court determines that the Church is likely to succeed in proving that the District’s actions violate RFRA. The District’s current restrictions substantially burden the Church’s exercise of religion. More, the District has failed to offer evidence at this stage showing that it has a compelling interest in preventing the Church from meeting outdoors with appropriate precautions, or that this prohibition is the least-restrictive means to achieve its interest. The Court will therefore grant the Church’s motion for injunctive relief.”

To understand the church’s argument under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), this section from the court’s opinion is helpful.

RFRA provides that the government may not “substantially burden” a person’s exercise of religion, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” “The only exception recognized by the statute requires the government to satisfy the compelling interest test,” that is, “to demonstrate that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” (citations omitted)

For its case under RFRA, the church needed to prove that the District’s regulations constitute a “substantial burden” on its exercise of religion. CHBC argued that its conviction to meet as an entire congregation in one gathering was burdened by the Mayor’s limit of 100 people. For more detail on that argument, see our explainer on the case when it was filed.

While the District did not dispute the sincerity of CHBC’s religious convictions for gathering in person, they argued that the church could meet by other methods, “hold multiple services, host a drive-in service, or broadcast the service online or over the radio,” as others in the District have done this year. The court responded to the District’s argument.

“But the District misses the point. It ignores the Church’s sincerely held (and undisputed) belief about the theological importance of gathering in person as a full congregation. . . . The District may think that its proposed alternatives are sensible substitutes. And for many churches they may be. But “it is not for [the District] to say that [the Church’s] religious beliefs” about the need to meet together as one corporal body “are mistaken or insubstantial. . . . It is for the Church, not the District or this Court, to define for itself the meaning of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” Hebrews 10:25.”

Once the church proved a “substantial burden” on its religious exercise, the onus then moved to the District to prove its order achieves their public health purpose through the “least restrictive means” possible. Judge McFadden noted that RFRA requires more from the District than its generalized public health interests to maintain such a restriction against CHBC’s request. On whether or not the District’s actions meet that higher standard outlined in RFRA, Judge McFadden writes:

The District has failed to meet its burden at this stage, as it presented little to no evidence that it has a compelling interest in applying its restrictions to ban the type of services that the church wishes to hold. And some of the scant evidence that does appear in the record cuts against the District’s arguments.

The evidence cutting against the District’s arguments are the government’s actions in support of the mass protests during the summer. Judge McFadden discussed how these First Amendment protected gatherings have been treated differently.

No matter how the protests were organized and planned, the District’s (and in particular, Mayor Bowser’s) support for at least some mass gatherings undermines its contention that it has a compelling interest in capping the number of attendees at the Church’s outdoor services. The Mayor’s apparent encouragement of these protests also implies that the District favors some gatherings (protests) over others (religious services).

Now months into this public health crisis, the District has had the opportunity to determine with greater particularity the risks presented by COVID-19 and the restrictions necessary; sweeping justifications perhaps more suitable to the early stages of a public health crisis will not suffice. On the record here, the District has not shown that it has a compelling interest in applying its 100-person limit to the Church’s proposed outdoor services.

Judge McFadden also discussed the significant work CHBC’s leaders did before filing suit to amicably resolve this conflict with Mayor Bowser and the District. The church sought resolution with the District multiple times over the course of months, as the Court opinion notes.

The Court likewise rejects the District’s argument that the Church cannot show irreparable harm because of its delay in seeking injunctive relief. The District contends that the Church waited “more than six months after the first Mayor’s Order restricting mass gatherings” to sue. But as the District admits, the Church was not twiddling its thumbs during that period—it “discussed with the District alternatives to full- congregation meetings” and “twice sought administrative relief in the form of an exemption from the Mayor’s Orders.” This is the sort of behavior that courts ordinarily encourage— indeed, sometimes require, . . . The Church will not now be punished for seeking an amicable resolution before rushing to the courthouse.

Judge McFadden concludes his opinion on this particular case in a way that also offers an overview of our country’s current situation.

The Church has consistently represented that it will take appropriate precautions such as holding services outdoors, providing for social distancing, and requiring masks. As explained, the District has not put forward sufficient evidence showing that prohibiting a gathering with these precautions is necessary to protect the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly presented unique challenges to governments, which are tasked with balancing the public safety and religious freedom. The Court acknowledges the difficult decisions facing the Mayor here. But Congress set rules for this sort of balancing when it enacted RFRA.

The Church has shown that it is likely to succeed in proving that the District’s actions impose a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. For its part, the District has not shown that it is likely to prove a compelling interest in prohibiting the Church from holding outdoor worship services with appropriate precautions, or that its restrictions are the least restrictive means available to achieve its public health objectives.

This federal opinion echoes the argument ERLC President Russell Moore has made often during the COVID-19 crisis. Responding to a Supreme Court decision on California’s pandemic order, Moore said, “This pandemic is a perilous time. We need to emerge from it with both our public safety and our First Amendment intact. We can do that, but only if elected officials and the courts take seriously the matters both of public health and of constitutional freedoms.”

Thankfully, this preliminary injunction allows Capitol Hill Baptist Church and the District of Columbia to take both seriously.

A closer look at the judicial philosophy of Amy Coney Barrett
By / Oct 7

By now, most of America knows the name Amy Coney Barrett. For many, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court became a familiar name during her confirmation hearing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. At the time, as Barrett was sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Diane Feinstein aggressively questioned her ability to serve as a judge on account of her religious faith. Summing up the intense exchange was Fienstein’s now infamous remark to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” But often overlooked was Barrett’s response to the line of questioning: “If you’re asking whether I take my Catholic faith seriously, I do, though I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

Despite the senator’s protestations, Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit, where she continues to serve. And in the days since she was officially nominated by President Trump to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court following the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Gisnburg, Barrett’s life, faith, record, and judicial philosophy have come under tremendous scrutiny. In fact, before she was even nominated—when there was only speculation that the president was considering Barrett—multiple media outlets published outlandish attacks upon Barrett, attempting to draw links between the judge’s faith community and the dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale. 

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Barrett’s beliefs, the most important thing about a judicial nominee is not his or her faith or religious background but the nominee’s judicial philosophy—a jurist’s understanding of and approach to the law. In fact, attempting to impose a religious test upon public officials or judicial nominees is strictly prohibited by Article VI of the Constitution. And concerning her own approach to impartiality as a judge, Barrett has said, “I think one of the great traditions in this country is that judges participate in the law, participate in the decision of cases, and rule even when they disagree with the outcome.”

As Russell Moore insists, these arguments over the Supreme Court nominee’s religious faith are an unnecessary distraction. And beyond these trivialities, there is much to commend Amy Coney Barrett as a potential Supreme Court justice. Below, I explore only a few of the features of her judicial philosophy as evidence of why I believe Judge Barrett would make an excellent addition to our nation’s highest court.

Summary of Barrett’s judicial philosophy

At the time of her nomination, the ERLC described Barrett’s judicial philosophy this way:

“Judge Barrett is a proponent of originalism, a manner of interpreting the Constitution that begins with the text and attempts to give that text the meaning it had when it was adopted; and textualism, a method of statutory interpretation that relies on the plain text of a statute to determine its meaning. Judge Barrett has previously voiced support for the judicial doctrine of stare decisis (or, following existing precedent) while maintaining that prior precedent is not sacrosanct.”

Twin methodologies

As seen in that summary, an important part of Barrett’s judicial philosophy is her commitment to the “twin interpretive methodologies” of textualism and originalism, an approach to interpretation that the judge shares with the late Justice Antonin Scalia for whom she clerked at the Supreme Court. The two terms essentially refer to the same methodology, with textualism corresponding to statutory interpretation and originalism applying to constitutional interpretation. 

According to Barrett, originalists “insist that judges must adhere to the original public meeting of the Constitution’s text.” Elsewhere she wrote, “For an originalist, the meaning of the text is fixed so long as it is discoverable.” For Barrett, a law means what the law was understood to mean when it was enacted. In this sense, Barrett’s originalism stands in contrast with the “living constitutionalism” of more progressive jurists. 

Similarly, Barrett has argued that textualists “emphasize that words mean what they say, not what a judge thinks that they ought to say.” A commitment to textualism, therefore, signals Barrett’s recognition of the fact that judges are not legislators. A key reason one can have confidence in her jurisprudence is her assertion that “Fidelity to the law means fidelity to the text as written.” 

Stare decisis

Alongside her commitment to textualism and originalism, another critical aspect of Barrett’s judicial philosophy is her view of stare decisis. Legal professionals, as well as those who followed recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, will remember that the doctrine of stare decisis refers to legal precedent. It is a judicial policy that means “to stand by the things decided.” And it signifies a commitment to following existing precedent in deciding cases before the court. Barrett has described the doctrine as “ a sensible rule” because, as she notes, “among other things, it protects the reliance interests of those who have structured their affairs in accordance with the Court’s existing cases.” 

Undoubtedly, much will be made of her view of stare decisis should Barrett sit again before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. At the Supreme Court, challenges to abortion are measured by the precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And with the current ideological makeup of the court, proponents of abortion will desire for Barrett to affirm a strong commitment to stare decisis in hopes of rebuffing any legal challenges to these precedents.

Barrett affirms the importance of stare decisis as means of maintaining doctrinal stability. She recognizes that the court’s legitimacy hinges in part on its consistency. But even so, she acknowledges that the doctrine is only one means of promoting such stability. While she does recognize that certain rulings are secure as “superprecedents” (e.g., Marbury v. Madison; Brown v. Board of Education), she denies that such rulings are secured on the grounds of stare decisis. And notably, in a law review article Barrett specifically mentions that the decision in Roe has not achieved superprecedent status.

Conclusion

It is unreasonable for any group to expect that a jurist would issue only rulings consistent with the views of those who supported his or her nomination. But many times in recent decades, religious conservatives have faced bitter disappointment not because of a judge’s commitment to upholding the law but because of the apparent disregard of numerous judges for their former approach to jurisprudence prior to obtaining a lifetime judicial appointment. And while there is no way to know for certain, the judicial philosophy of Judge Barrrett gives every reason for confidence in the trajectory of her future as a jurist and, potentially, as a Supreme Court Justice.

Explainer: What you should know about Judge Amy Coney Barrett
By / Sep 26

President Donald Trump has announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Here is what you should know about the latest nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Age: 48 

Birthplace: New Orleans, Louisiana 

Education: B.A. from Rhodes College; J.D. from Notre Dame Law School.

Current judgeship: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (appointed in 2017 by President Trump).

Previous roles: Judge Barrett previously taught constitutional law at Notre Dame before being appointed to her current judgeship. Prior to teaching, Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Laurence Silberman of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Religious denomination: Roman Catholic

Family: Judge Barrett is married and has seven children. Two of her children are adopted from Haiti, and one has special needs.

Judicial philosophy: Judge Barrett is a proponent of originalism, a manner of interpreting the Constitution that begins with the text and attempts to give that text the meaning it had when it was adopted; and textualism, a method of statutory interpretation that relies on the plain text of a statute to determine its meaning. Judge Barrett has previously voiced support for the judicial doctrine of stare decisis (or, following existing precedent) while maintaining that prior precedent is not sacrosanct. 

Positions and rulings

Judge Barrett signed onto a statement of protest in 2012 as she objected to the birth control mandate for employers of religious orientation. The statement proclaimed the birth control mandate as an “assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience.”

In Kanter v. Barr, Barrett filed a dissenting opinion arguing that Kanter, a felon convicted of mail fraud, should be allowed to own a gun. In her dissent, Barrett wrote, “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. . . . Absent evidence that [Kanter] either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”

In 1998, Barrett co-authored an essay titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” In this essay, Barrett and the other authors argued “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense.” Subsequently, the authors suggest Catholic judges might need to recuse themselves in capital cases on account of “the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment.” However, in her 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Barrett walked back her statements from 20 years prior saying she does not believe the same things now. 

In a dissenting opinion in the case of Cook County v. Wolf, Barrett argued that litigation on the public charge rule—a rule which would deny permanent residency to immigrants which the government believed would need assistance in the future—should have proceeded. In her dissent, Barret argued the courts are “not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”

In 2019, Barrett joined a majority opinion in Price v. City of Chicago which, citing binding Supreme Court precedent, upheld a city ordinance which prevented “sidewalk counselors” from approaching women entering an abortion clinic.

Attacks on Judge Barrett’s faith

Since the time Judge Amy Coney Barrett was first floated as a possible replacement for former Justice Kennedy’s seat in 2018, she has received criticism on the basis of her religion. Recently, multiple news outlets disparaged Barrett’s faith by attempting to connect her beliefs to the dystopian novel written by Margaret Atwood. Previously, a United States senator questioned her fitness as a judge because of the Catholic “dogma [that] lives loudly within her.” 

The Constitution prohibits religious tests for office, including judicial appointments. Attacks upon a candidate due to their religious faith are also unwarranted. As Russell Moore explained in a video this past Tuesday, “Let’s not get into debates about the religious identity of the nominee. Because we need to be able to, on the other side of this, as Americans, deal with the aftermath of so far 200,000 of our fellow Americans killed by the coronavirus, and an economy that needs to be rebuilt, and countless other fractures in American life. Let’s not let this be one of them.”

During her confirmation hearing to the Seventh Circuit District of Appeals, Barrett responded to questions regarding the role her Catholic faith plays in her jurisprudence. She stated, “If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic, I am. Although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” 

Additionally, Barrett’s comments during Notre Dame Law’s 2006 Commencement ceremony have recently come under public scrutiny: “And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as [Father Jenkins] told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God.” In the same speech, Barrett further explained, “While we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God. We are a community characterized by our love and concern for one another.

Russell Moore’s comments on the nomination

The ERLC’s Russell Moore supported the nomination of Barrett to the high court, saying: 

“I have long respected Judge Barrett, not only as a highly accomplished jurist but also as an adoptive parent active in the advocacy for adoption and for special needs children. As she goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m confident she will lay out a thoughtful defense of commitment to the constitution and the proper limits of judicial authority in our system of government. 

“As a son of Mississippi Gulf Coast, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a nomination of a New Orleans-born judge who grew up in Metairie, Louisiana which is perhaps one reason why I have paid attention to her career for years. There is no question that Judge Barrett is qualified by intellectual acumen and years of experience to serve on the highest court in the land. I am praying for her, her family, and our nation in what are sure to be tumultuous days in the weeks ahead for the entire country. 

“The special circumstances of this nomination, of course, mean that this could be a highly charged confirmation process in an already polarized nation. One need not agree with the process taken by the Senate to agree that, having taken up the nomination, the Senate should treat Judge Barrett with respect and consideration. No serious person actually believes that Judge Barrett would be a theocrat imposing her religious views on a pluralistic republic. In fact, her record shows otherwise, as confirmed even by many who disagree with her rulings. 

“We ought then to expect that the debate over Judge Barrett’s nomination would be about her qualifications and her record, not about her personal religious views or affiliations. That’s especially true when our country has the legacy we have sometimes had of religious bigotry—ranging from some in our history wrongly suggesting that Catholic Americans would be beholden to the pope instead of the Constitution, that Jewish Americans would have duel loyalty with Israel, that Muslim Americans would impose sharia law, or that evangelical Americans would interpret their prophecy charts and not the law. We should expect as a country to be free from even a hint of those attitudes now, and I hope this confirmation process will debate issues and qualifications, not question the nominee’s prayer life.”

A press release on the appointment can be found here.

ERLC interns Justin McDowell and Jackson McNeece contributed to this article.

ERLC’s Russell Moore Calls the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh a ‘Tremendous Choice’ for the U.S. Supreme Court
By / Jul 9

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2018—Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, expressed his support of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh as the next associate justice for the U.S. Supreme Court today.

"Judge Kavanaugh is a tremendous choice for justice of the Supreme Court,” Moore said. “He is a brilliant judge with a career of intellectually robust conservatism that recognizes the value of judicial restraint and faithfulness to the Constitution. I fully support President Trump’s choice to replace Justice Kennedy.

“I am confident Judge Kavanaugh will be a strong defender of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially our First Freedom of religious liberty.

“I pray that Judge Kavanaugh will serve for decades to come with a firm and unwavering commitment to our Constitution’s principles. I join with Baptists and other evangelicals in calling upon the Senate to confirm Judge Kavanaugh without delay.”

The ERLC will work closely with a coalition of evangelicals and judicial advocacy groups in support of this nomination.

The ERLC is releasing a coalition letter signed by dozens of evangelical leaders supporting the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. The letter can be found on the ERLC’s website.

5 facts about Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee
By / Mar 16

President Obama said Wednesday he would nominate appeals court judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the death of associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Here are five things you should know about Judge Garland:

1. Garland currently serves as the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The AP notes that at 63 years old, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in late 1971.

2. Garland graduated from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School.  Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from 1977 to 1978, and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. from 1978 to 1979. He has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in the Clinton administration. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, he served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included supervising the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. In 1995, President Clinton nominated Garland for a seat on the D.C. Circuit court.

3. During his confirmation hearing to the D.C. Circuit court, Garland was asked about "judicial activism." He answered that "[f]ederal judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems.  The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinion on the issues of the day.”

4. Garland’s position on social issues is unclear. As Tom Goldstein notes, “Because the D.C. Circuit's caseload is dominated by regulatory challenges, few of the cases in which Judge Garland participated involve hot-button social issues like abortion or the death penalty.” But it’s presumed that Garland would pass President Obama’s litmus test on abortion rights.

5. Garland has said that one of his key influences is the judge he previously clerked for, Judge Henry Friendly, and that he often asks himself, “What would Judge Friendly have done?” (Prior to Roe v. Wade, Judge Friendly wrote a never published decision saying that, “the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges.”) But Garland also described the release of the papers of the late Justice Blackmun — the author of Roe v. Wade — as a "great gift to the country."

JD Greear on “What it means not to judge”
By / Nov 13

What does the Bible mean when it says “Judge not, that you be not judged”? And how does this fit with how the church should respond to the LGBTQ community? Can the love of Christ transcend humanity's sexuality and get to the heart? J.D. Greear breaks down all these points and explains how the church ought to respond.

Greear is the pastor at The Summit Church of Raleigh-Durham, N.C.

JD Greear on “What it Means Not to Judge”
By / Nov 11

What does the Bible mean by, "Judge not, that you be not judged"? And how does this fit in with the way the church ought to respond to the LGBTQ community? Can the love of Christ transcend humanity's sexuality and get to the heart? J.D. Greear breaks down all these points and explains how the church ought to respond to all peoples.