And (Good) Comments Like An Ever Flowing Stream

This court has retreated so far up the ivory tower they have completely lost sight of the ground and are suffering brain damage from the lack of oxygen. Kavanaugh is speaking of a world that only exists in his mind, it has no basis in reality as pointedly revealed by the dissent. It hasn't gotten as much press as her other quotes from her book, but Barrett made the bizarre comment that the Supreme Court doesn't do justice. As a lawyer, I recognize that the courts apply the law, but there is an intention to do justice even if imperfectly and cruelly. What is equity if not a form of justice for example. For Barrett, they are applying "The Law". I'd like to ask, where does this "law" come from? What is the intention? Much of what the court does is well beyond the mere words of a statute. So what is the purpose of all this "law"? Kavanaugh, Barrett and the other four arch-reactionaries wouldn't last two weeks in a Christian ethics class in seminary, the professor would metaphorically dismember them and feed them into the paper shredder for such muddled and unhinged thinking. They want power, but they don't want the responsibility that comes with that power. The reality is that this "law" they are so enamored with serves to further consolidate power, money and influence in a select community that is primarily white, wealthy and Christian. I find Barrett's assertion of rejecting justice as particularly strange in view of her overt claims of faith. How does she reconcile her position with the command to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God? The six reject justice, and routinely reject mercy for the criminal defendant, Thomas going so far as to reject actual innocence in death penalty cases. There is no humility in their exercise of power, they won't even deign to issue opinions now. Barrett has completely inverted Christian practice, money matters, ideas (The Law!) matters, people aren’t even part of the equation with the exclusion of justice.

I'm actually working on an Advent "series" (my "series" tend to be grand plans that peter out with the first draft) regarding God's justice (not in the way we usually think of it, to give you a hint).  It aligns with what you say here, especially Barrett's comments and her idea of jurisprudence.  Which isn't one.  She just thinks she and the law are one. Scratch her, and I think she’d sound like this:

Trump’s spiritual advisor, Paula White: “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God.” pic.twitter.com/QrYmYb6yld

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) September 9, 2025

At least with the same self-assurance.

I am convinced to boldly say that the only way to know God is through humility. “I am the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be as you have said,” Mary tells Gabriel (as best memory recalls).  Anything less is idolatry, whether the idol is a thing or our own sense of self. We can convince ourselves of our own righteousness on almost any occasion in almost any direction. But if we don’t humble ourselves before God and others (who are, according to Matthew’s parable of the sheep and the goats, to us also God), we are handmaidens to ourselves. (No spoilers; the Matthean nativity is the lection for this year). Judges are obliged to uphold the law, but, as you point out, equity came to law to assure justice, not just rules. It’s why I keep bringing up jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is judges (some of the best writing on the subject is written by the best of them) struggling to reconcile law with justice, usually by regarding the case and parties before them in harmony with the law. The Roberts Court gives too much deference to power (another abstraction) and the Law, and too little to persons (except when the persons serve a Justice’s goals; and then the balance tips the other way). The Law is not God, but a little more humility before the task of adjusting and applying the law, is certainly in order (a little less interest in twisting the requirements of equity into something unrecognizable wouldn’t hurt, either).

I guess I am sensitive given recent experiences. My pastor has said that if you are not nervous entering the pulpit to preach, you are in the wrong profession. You should tremble to speak of God. I didn't completely understand this until I sat down to write my sermon. Then I viscerally felt that responsibility, it takes to preach to a congregation. Now all those words carry weight and meaning, there is a tremendous responsibility. It may have been a smaller crowd composed of the truly committed that will show up in the middle of August, but who are they and how will they understand your words? I was deeply grateful for my pastor reading of my draft sermon and her kind guidance on thinking through what I meant to say. Our SCOTUS stands before a nation of 340M+, and the words they use and decisions they render can literally result in life or death. Yet they currently approach their power not with humility at their task and a sense of responsibility to the individuals impacted by their decisions (they don’t even seem to care at this point about the actual litigants in the current cases). We have them yielding massive power without even explanation. A grand counsel, not a deliberative body.

I feel that I am coming to this too often, but I will say it again. Yesterday’s decision was yet another blow against the least. The best sermon I ever heard about the vineyard workers pointed out that the workers were day laborers. Every day they hoped for work so they and their families could eat. If there was no work, they had nothing for that day. In that light, when the laborer that arrives in the last hour and is paid the same as the one who worked all day are both paid a day’s wages, the focus is not on the work or our sense of fairness. The focus is that all the laborers and their families will get to eat and live another day. That is what justice looks like. (As I write, I now also am thinking about whose sense of fairness. We as outsiders think that getting paid the same for one or eight hours work is unfair. But if you were one of the laborers, would you feel the same? You would know what it is like to not get selected for work, you would know what it means to go home with nothing. To be picked first is to not spend the day in anxiety and worry about earning nothing. Yes, the other worker worked less, but tomorrow that could be use experiencing the mercy of day’s wage instead of deprivation.) But Kavanaugh, pens a concurrence allowing the full power of the state to oppress the least, those seeking wages on a day by day basis. These are the people at the absolute bottom of the labor pool, the poorest of the poor. The “low-wage” worker is a class worthy of oppression no matter their immigration status. Even the US citizen in this low-wage class is deemed unworthy of the protections offered to the white, the native English speaker, and the financially privileged. We would never subject the latter group to racial profiling, demands of proof of citizenship, detention, and violent abduction from the streets. Kavanaugh and Barrettt are firsts in service to the firsts. The lasts stay last under their “law”.

Let justice flow down like waters.

I leave the rest to speak for itself. And thank you for the exegesis of the vineyard laborers. That is something to meditate on, for me.