She could have been my cousin!

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s most recent nominee to the Supreme Court, looks and sounds like anyone of my cousins. Maybe that makes her less scary to me. She’s so familiar—from the mild pinch in her voice, to the soft r’s in her speech, to her facial features and even to her body morph. Even more so, it’s Miss Kagan’s worldview—her philosophy of life—that pervaded my own upbringing. So, in that way, she’s definitely one of my “peeps.” For me, the only thing that is unusual about her is that her idiosyncrasies—unlike those of my cousins—could, very soon, become the law of the land.

What I learned about Elena Kagan this week was, well, at the same time a lot—and nothing at all. What I learned was, again, oh so familiar. She’s the quintessential Northeastern liberal–make that, the epitome of the New England liberal, cast in an ethnically Jewish personality. (During my growing up years, my father’s side was almost entirely in Connecticut.) At the same time, on the legal front, none of us really learned anything at all. What people saw was a likable and unflappable personality (she stuttered in only a couple of exchanges), but she largely deflected the pointed questions and gave only bland and ambiguous answers on the really salient subjects.

One certainty I think anyone one of us could take away from the committee inquiry is that Miss Kagan engaged, at least at one time, in pro-abortion activism. This point is quite significant. We haven’t really had an unapologetic, politically oriented abortion activist on the Court since the late Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade. (And he didn’t start out his professional career that way, as Miss Kagan apparently did.)  So, Miss Kagan, as “Justice Kagan,” could turn out to be Harry Blackmun revivified on the High Bench—and then some. That would be a bad thing. Having said that, though, let me tell you what I harbor in my heart for the likely and near-future Justice Kagan.

Although (we’re told), Miss Kagan had a falling out with the Orthodox Judaism of her childhood, she still has a Jewish conscience in her soul. (There is no indication she has utterly repudiated her Jewish roots—culturally or religiously.) This is hopeful. The Great Apostle Paul (and former Rabbi Saul) wrote of those who may not apparently know God, “the work of the law [is] written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (see Romans 2:15). A seed of conscience can always be nurtured. I’m convinced for most of us, the older we get, the richer is the soil of our hearts and, therefore, the better are the chances the seed of conscience can sprout—and even grow.

Should the Judiciary Committee vote this month to recommend Miss Kagan to the full Senate for a vote; and should she subsequently receive a majority of “Yea” votes in August (both outcomes are a virtual fait accompli), she will be sworn in as the next sitting associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. That’s when our work begins. Faith and Action will call the people of God to pray for Justice Kagan, and we will do everything God enables us to do to persuade her to return to the roots of her conscience, which are found in God’s Word, and epitomized in the Great Commandments.

The success of this endeavor is predicated on building an amicable relationship with Miss Kagan, starting now. So, at the expense of criticism from our friends and allies, we will continue to treat Nominee Kagan (the presumptive Justice Kagan) with all due respect, deference and generosity. For those who think we are compromising by doing so, I would hope they would consult the entirety of God’s Word on the treatment of others—including enemies—before rendering a final verdict on us.

To review or catch up with the Kagan confirmation, be sure to go to http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx.

Rob +

I am monitoring the last hours of questioning for President Obama’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Hope you’re watching and praying with me. I highly recommend watching at http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx. Today will be the last day for questions to be posed to the nominee. Tomorrow will be witnesses speaking mostly in support of her. A committee vote will be taken sometime before the end of next week, and a vote by the full Senate is expected in late July.

Tonight I’ll post my full appraisal of General Kagan as an individual, a nominee and a prospective Supreme Court justice. It will be my take as a missionary to elected and appointed officials and a chaplain on Capitol Hill. It will not be a legal or constitutional analysis. That perspective is better left to other experts and our allied ministries.

Back later . . .

Rob +

While monitoring the proceedings and praying inside the hearing room, Faith and Action’s Peggy Nienaber had this view of Nominee Kagan.

Our Faith & Action chief of program, Peggy Nienaber, has been inside the hearing room throughout the beginning of the confirmation process for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Look, I know these things can appear very boring–but I hope you are watching it, at least from time to time. While nothing substantive is really said by the nominee (for fear of inviting trouble), you can still get a sense for who the nominee is, at least in terms of style, personality, etc. Her body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, demeanor, all say a lot. Watching also reminds you to pray for her, for the senators asking questions, and for the entire US Senate as each of the 100 members consider how they will vote once the Judiciary Committee is done and makes it’s recommendation.

BTW: The confirmation process begins with as many senators as care to do so looking through her dossier. She also paid courtesy visits to many of them for brief chats. The members of the Judiciary Committee (12 Democrats and 7 Republicans) do the more serious work of examining her record. It’s these committee members that are now asking questions of the nominee in the hearing that will generally last a few days. Later on, witnesses will be called to say good or bad things about the nominee. The Committee will then vote whether to “report out” to the whole Senate and either recommend to vote on her confirmation or not. It’s a virtual fait accompli that Miss Kagan will be recommended to the Senate for a vote. The majority leader will then schedule that vote, likely within a few weeks. If the nominee receives a majority of Yea votes, she will be sworn-in immediately, but will likely have a more formal, quasi-public investiture within a few weeks or certainly before the new High Court term that always begins the first Monday of October.

Please take this seriously. Supreme Court justices are not only critically important in how major decisions are made on our way of life in America, but they are the longest serving members of our federal government.

Rob  +

As you well know by now, the US Senate confirmation hearing for President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is underway. At this hour “General Kagan” (as her title has her after her service us US Solicitor General) is seated at the chair and desk I anointed with oil during our prayer service last week. You may have also seen the members of the Judiciary Committee up on the dais making their opening remarks. Chairman Patrick Leahy is in the chair I paused to pray over a little longer, asking God to help the committee conduct a hearing marked by “Truth.”

Faith and Action chief of program, Peggy Nienaber, is in that room while I’m out on the West Coast beginning an extensive speaking tour. This is the first hearing in recent times that I haven’t been in the room praying and observing. This time I’m monitoring from afar while Peggy E-mails, texts and tweets her observations to me. Together we will file reports for you each day and pass along other information that will help you to pray, evaluate and inform your senators about what you think of our prospective next top judge–who will likely serve for 30 or more years.

I trust you’re taking all this very seriously.

Before I sign off, let me just say that the US Senate has lost an extraordinary member in 92-year old Robert Byrd. He was one-of-kind. A faithful Baptist who taught Sunday school virtually all his adult life, he had also memorized the entire US Constitution. In fact, he was one of the few members of either house of Congress who actually daily carried in his coat pocket both a Constitution AND a Declaration of Independence. Senator Byrd could also be an enigma, though. He would often rail against an issue and even flail his pocket-edition Constitution in the air, but then go ahead and vote for what he was denouncing. Of course, there are no perfect politicians, but I’d sure take another Robert Byrd over many others. May God rest his soul.

Rob +

This two-word verse from John 11:35 is for me one of the most profound in the Bible. It says our Lord felt emotion as much as any of us. That’s why when news reached me that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had lost her beloved husband of 56 years, I knew our Lord wept for her, too. I know some people will struggle with that, because they mix up their feelings about her judicial philosophy with the person behind it.

Somehow we get the impression that these powerful people in government are not humans like the rest of us. I would argue that reducing public figures we don’t care for to something other than just people is to deny them their humanity. That’s the same sin that abortion commits against the unborn child. I can tell you from my muerous encounters with Justice Ginsburg that she is every bit as human as you and me, and she feels the same pain anyone of us would experience losing a loved one.

Frankly, I don’t care whether we agree with Justice Ginsburg or not, we’re equally obligated to pray for her and demonstrate to her God’s love. I hope you’ll do that by first praying for her and her family in their grief. You can also send her a personal message through our office at info@faithandaction.org. We’ll make sure it’s hand-delivered to her.

In His great Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” If you were in Justice Ginsburg’s place, you would want and need the love of God’s people. Let’s give it to her lavishly during her time of grief.

More later on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee and prospective colleague to Justice Ginsburg, Elena Kagan.

Rob +

We expect President Obama to announce at any moment who will be his nominee to fill the impending vacancy on the US Supreme Court. All eyes are on Elena Kagan, current solicitor general, or top civil attorney for the United States. The “S.G.”, as solicitors are know, represents the president and administration before the Supreme Court, among other duties.

Please pray–watch my video at our Faith & Action facebook page and our website for more as it unfolds. For our part, we will plan a prayer and anointing service for the US Senate hearing room where confirmation hearings will take place, likely in early summer.

Stand by–and pray!

Rob +

I just came from the US Supreme Court where the justices announced their decision in favor of the continued display of the a humble cross in the Mojave Desert memorializing fallen soldiers. As you know, Faith & Action filed a legal brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the Cross and I traveled there last year to pray in that lonely place. This is a great victory for religious liberty, for the First Amendment, for our American heroes–and, most importantly–for the Cross!

In their 5-4 decision today, the justices upheld the constitutionality of this single cross atop a ricky crag in the middle of the giant Mojave Desert. Atheist groups had attacked the cross as unconstitutional, but Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas reversed the decision of a lower court striking down the cross as a violation of the First Amendment. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer disagreed with the majority and filed dissenting opinions.

Back with more after I read the lengthy decision . . .

Rejoicing with you,

Rob +

About the recent federal court order declaring the National Day of Prayer supremely illegal (well, that’s what “unconstitutional” really means): The President has filed a formal “intent to appeal.” This means he has notified Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb that her decision striking down the National Day of Prayer will be challenged. At the same time, the President’s lawyers at the Department of Justice have not indicated what they will say in their defense.

Now, here’s how these things work: When the President or his actions are “enjoined” (or prohibited) by a court, as in this case, he orders the Department of Justice to assign one or more of its many lawyers to legally defend his position. Inside the Department of Justice a decision is then made whether this matter is important, or really important. Really important means the best and most experienced lawyers are tapped and the most prominent personalities–like the Solicitor General (the nation’s top civil attorney) herself–or at least her deputies–are visible and vocal on the matter.

So far, I haven’t seen or heard from the Solicitor General or one of her deputies. (I may have missed it. If so, please bring my attention to it.) This could mean the matter is only in its preliminary stages, or . . . it’s just important, but not really important. Please pardon my cynicism, but after 16 years in Washington, I always give the benefit of the doubt–both ways. During the three presidential administrations I’ve observed up close (two Democrat and one Republican), I’ve seen an awful lot of horse and pony shows. In other words, legal window dressing. I’ve also seen presidents “throw the fight,” so-to-speak. It can be very convenient for an administration to blame-shift to the courts. On the campaign trail it sounds something like this, “Well, we tried to do the right thing, but the courts wouldn’t let us.”

Time will tell what President Obama plans to do with this legal contest. I hope and pray he’ll mount a vigorous defense of the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. Even more so, I hope and pray he’ll remind the court why prayer is so important to our nation and its well-being.

Regardless of how the President and his lawyers approach this, Faith and Action will mount its own vigorous effort. It’s why we’ve launched a new facebook page, “Defend the National Day of Prayer.” I hope you’ll sign on to it to show your support. By doing so, you’ll also be included in our own Faith and Action legal brief to be filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals–and maybe even with the United States Supreme Court, should it get that far. You can also sign up to be listed on the legal defense at our website: www.faithandaction.org. (Use the National Day of Prayer Amicus Brief tab at upper left.)

It’s important for the courts to know what American citizens think about the National Day of Prayer. While it’s true the federal courts are to be free and independent of political pressure, they also want to contemplate the sentiments of the American people when deliberating their decisions. Let’s show them strong sentiments for the National Day of Prayer!

If you haven’t done it already, please go to our new facebook page now: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Defend-the-National-Day-of-Prayer/113264075374172?ref=ts and press the “Like” button at the top right-hand side of the page. Then, pass along the link and information to all your facebook friends. Thanks for helping us send a strong message to the courts: Americans want and need the National Day of Prayer!

Rob +

Below is an article that will post later this morning at www.faithandaction.org on last night’s declaration by a federal judge prohibiting President Obama from recognizing the National Day of Prayer on May 6. In her order, Judge Barbara Crabb compared recognition of the National Day of Prayer to the practice of “rune magic.”

National prayer observances date back to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. All recent presidents, including President Obama, have issued National Day of Prayer proclamations. It’s uncertain how the ruling will affect the 1952 law passed by Congress creating the National Day of Prayer, and its modification in 1988, signed by Ronald Reagan, that set the first Thursday in each May for its observance.

This ruling shouldn’t shock anyone. Atheist activist and lawyer Michael Newdow, with whom I’ve had a couple of face-to-face ministry moments, has for years been relentlessly filing lawsuits against every public acknowledgement of God. It was inevitable he would find a federal judge somewhere to agree with him. He did in the Madison, Wisconsin based Judge Barbara Crabb. What really matters are two things: Whether President Obama will order his Justice Department to appeal the ruling and ardently defend the National Day of Prayer, or, whether he will simply let it stand. Another option he has is to “throw the fight,” by offering only a tepid, half-hearted defense.

Lamentably, President Obama cancelled last year’s White House observance of National Day of Prayer, saying it’s better for citizens to stay home and privately observe it. That doesn’t suggest he’s up for a vigorous fight to preserve this long and enormously meaningful American tradition.

Much more importantly, it focuses attention on the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Justice John Paul Stevens when he retires this June. I will urge my friends and allies in the US Senate to be sure to ask any candidate for the post where he or she stands on the constitutionality of calling out to God for blessing on our land.

Here’s our news item on it . . .

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA NOT TO RECOGNIZE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

A federal judge in Wisconsin has ordered President Obama not to issue a Presidential Proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer which Congress has set as the first Thursday of each May. In the same opinion, Judge Barbara Crabb declared the annual observance in America to be unconstitutional, writing that the government’s acknowledgement of the importance of prayer is no different than if it were to recognize “rune magic.”

Judge Crabb issued her injunction against the National Day of Prayer in response to a lawsuit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist organization co-founded by a former Pentecostal minister. One of the group’s champions is infamous atheist activist and “mail order minister” turned-lawyer Michael Newdow, who unsuccessfully argued before the Supreme Court against the Pledge of Allegiance (because of its clause, “one nation, under God”). Newdow has also filed lawsuits against the National Motto, “In God We Trust,” and against displays of the Ten Commandments.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has amassed more than $5 million in cash to continue it’s campaign against the National Day of Prayer.

“Faith and Action and its allied partners, including the National Clergy Council and the Christian Defense Coalition, will urge President Obama to order the Justice Department to immediately appeal this outrageous order and to defend the long history of America’s calls to prayer that date back to Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and even President Obama himself,” said Rev. Rob Schenck, president of Faith and Action and its lead missionary.

Rev. Schenck and Rev. Pat Mahoney plan a national news conference at the White House early next week to appeal to the President to take urgent action, as the National Day of Prayer events are only 3 weeks away.

President Obama with Justice John Paul Stevens

A few weeks ago, I hosted a group of pastors at our ministry center on Capitol Hill. As part of their all-day experience with us, I took them over to the US Senate to meet a long-time friend, Tom Jipping, who works for another friend, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Tom is an attorney and advises Senator Hatch on, among other things, nominees for appointment to the federal courts, including to the US Supreme Court.

For those not familiar with the process, let me explain it in brief: All federal judges are, at least in theory, appointed to their seats on the bench by the President of the United States. Now, with judges in the lower courts (like district courts, where trials take place), presidents often defer to others, like senators, to recommend someone for appointment. On the higher levels, though, including, of course, the highest, that is the US Supreme Court, the president tasks a search committee inside the White House to propose candidates. He then picks the one he thinks is best and presents that nominee to the US Senate for confirmation. This is based on Article II, Section II, Paragraph II of the US Constitution,

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

This means the President must gain the “stamp of approval” for his court appointments from the US Senate. The process begins with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. They will do research on the president’s nominee, circulate dossiers on that person, then schedule a hearing at which the nominee and others who know that person are asked questions about their knowledge and approach to the law, the Constitution, certain cases and situations. The committee then votes whether to refer the nomination to the entire senate for a vote of Yea or Nay. Sometimes the nominee will be approved in the committee, sometimes not. In some instances, the pressure on the nominee is so great, or the information on them so embarrassing or damaging to the nominee or the president, that the nominee is either pressured to withdraw or withdraws voluntarily.

If the nomination proceeds out of the committee to the entire US Senate, a vote is scheduled. Leading up to the actual vote, senators will debate the merits of the nominee and recommend their colleagues vote yes or no. Theoretically, this debate can go on forever, but certain actions are taken to limit it. When the vote is finally taken, all it requires is a simple majority to approve a nominee, after which that person is sworn in to their judicial post either publicly or privately. The Constitution allows for federal judges to serve without interference for an indefinite period and “hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” This phrase has been widely interpreted to mean a federal judge may serve for life, provided he or she does not commit an egregious act or lose their mental capacities. Only the Congress may remove  a federal judge, based on Article I, Sections II and III of the Constitution, “all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The terms, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are largely up to interpretation, and so, are somewhat vague and undefined. The result is that very few judges have ever been charged, (or “impeached”), and even fewer have ever been convicted and removed. Only one US Supreme Court justice in history has ever been forcibly removed from the bench.

All this to say that the process to bring about the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice to fill the seat to be vacated soon by retiring associate justice John Paul Stevens, is complex and is already well-underway. Generally Supreme Court justices will remain in place until their successor is approved by the US Senate. No one ever knows precisely when that will happen, but it could happen as soon as June or as late as this fall. Almost always it will be finalized by the start of the High Court’s next annual term, which begins on the first Monday of each October.

And this brings me back to Tom Jipping. I believe Tom is the most brilliant expert in the US Senate when it comes to judicial appointments and what makes for a good Supreme Court nominee. He told our pastors’ group when it comes to the US Supreme Court, it’s not whether the nominee is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, or pro-anything. The sine qua non of judicial fitness for office is whether that nominee possesses a credible judicial philosophy that upholds the integrity and plain meaning of the US Constitution. I agree. The Constitution secures the God-given rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, among them “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” (How can anyone enjoy any rights if they do not enjoy the first right to life? That settles that matter right there! )

Please pray for Tim Jipping and other behind-the-scenes advisors like him that will help their US Senators to evaluate President Obama’s nominees for this crucial opening on the US Supreme Court. Pray that God will give Tom and others wisdom, knowledge, insight and understanding (Proverbs 2:6) as they investigate, then advise their bosses on the interview process, the questioning during the hearing process, the debate before the vote, and ultimately how each Senator should cast his or her vote. Pray also for the President and his advisors, the White House staff tasked with the selection process, and, of course, for the nominee(s).

As I have in the past, I will go to the hearing room itself to symbolically consecrate the process to the Lord in prayer. Let’s remember, ultimately, “The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13: 1b, NIV) I routinely remind US Supreme Court justices, and everyone else that serves in government, that they are as ordained of God to their posts as I am to mine. That means each is held accountable to God, as much as to the Constitution, for the discharge of their offices. One of our (better) US Supreme Court justices once gave a talk to a small group of us in a private gathering on why judges and justices swear their oaths with the phrase, “So help me God.” He made it quite clear it’s because that is where their ultimate accountability lies.

More on this as the process advances . . .

Rob +