Last week we learned that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had nothing in his personal opinions that would prevent him from enforcing Roe v. Wade as the Supreme Law of the land as an appellate court justice. Then we learned that that he worked with the Lambda Legal Defense Fund in overturning a state’s initiative that protected an individual from being forced to rent his home to or hire homosexuals. Evangelical Conservatives have told us that President Bush has nominated a judge like Thomas and Scalia, but in Romer v. Evans, the case creating “special rights” for sodomites, Judge Roberts and Justices Rehnquest (for whom he clerked), Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides.
One would think those facts would be enough to persuade Evangelical Conservatives from falling in line behind the President, but it has not. Instead, the religious right leaders have embraced the White House talking points on John Roberts. We have been told that he is a lawyer’s lawyer, able to argue for either side of an issue. Is this what makes a lawyer “good,” or isn’t “goodness” determined by obedience to God?
A few years back, I came across the following story:
Many years ago, an advocate, distinguished for his eloquence and high social character, successfully defended a vile assassin, and, and by his tact, boldness and pathos, secured a verdict of acquittal. When the accused was released, he descended into the crowd of the court house, to receive the congratulations of his degraded companions, and, almost wild with elation, advanced to his advocate, offering his hand, with profuse expressions of admiration and gratitude. The dignified lawyer sternly joined his own hands behind his back and turned away, saying: “I touch no man’s hand that is foul with murder.” But in what light did this advocate learn that this criminal was too base to be recognized as a fellow man? The court had pronounced him innocent! It was only by the light of his private judgment – a private judgment formed not only in advance of, but in the teeth of, the authorized verdict. Where, now, were all the quibbles by which this honorable gentleman had persuaded himself to lend his professional skill to protect from a righteous doom a wretch too vile to touch his hand? as that “the lawyer is not the judge; that he is not authorized to decide the merits of the case?” Doubtless, this lawyer’s understanding spoke now, clear enough, in some such terms as these: “my hand is my own; it is purely a personal question to myself whether I shall give it to this murderer; and in deciding that personal question, I have a right to be guided by my own personal opinion of him. In claiming this, I infringe no legal right to life, liberty or possessions, which the constituted authorities have restored to him.” But was not his tongue his own, in the same sense with his hand? Was not the question, whether he could answer it to his God of having used his tongue to prevent the punishment of crime, as much a private, personal, individual matter, to be decided by his own private judgment, as the question whether he should shake hands with a felon.” R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. III, page 1-21. “Morality in the Legal Profession,” Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Virginia. (1996) at p.15 emphasis in original.
Consider also the next example Dabney provides: “[A] prominent advocate defends a man of doubtful character from the charge of fraud, and rescues him, by his skill, from his well-deserved punishment. But now this scurvy fellow comes forward and claims familiar access to the society of the honorable lawyer’s house, and aspires to the hand of his daughter in marriage.” Ibid. You can guess how the story continues: “My counselor, you advocated on my behalf, and it was by your industry and knowledge of the legal procedure that I stand before adjudicated not guilty. How is it now that you object to my presence?”
Sir William Blackstone defines Accessories After the Fact thusly:
An accessory after the fact may be, where a person, knowing a felony to have been committed, receives, relieves comforts or assists the felon. … Generally, any assistance whatever given to a felon, to hinder his being apprehended, tried or suffering punishment, makes the assister an accessory. … [T]he crime imputable to this species of accessory is the hindrance of public justice, by assisting the felon to escape the vengeance of the law. … [S]o strict is the law … that the nearest relations are not suffered to aid or receive one another.” Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, §40(c). (Emphasis mine.)
The modern American definition of Accessory After the Fact is not considerably different. So, if any assistance whatever given to a felon to hinder his suffering punishment makes the assister an accessory after the fact, how is that different for lawyers? Because they are just doing their job? Every attorney must ask himself, “shall I professionally assist this man in his unrighteousness, or should I decline?” As Dabney wrote, “that question involves an unavoidable duty, and constitutes a matter personal, private and immediate, between him and his God.” Discussions at 14.
Therefore, a lawyer who helps a felon to evade justice is an accessory after the fact. What about a lawyer who helps someone commit the felony without fear of Justice? Consider Blackstone on Accessory Before the Fact: “whoever procureth a felony to be committed, though it be by the intervention of a third person, is an accessory before the fact.” Commentaries, at §39.
All men, even appointees to the Supreme Court, are personally responsible to God for their professional actions. Can a Christian woman be employed as a prostitute and claim that her adultery and fornication was nothing more than what her profession required? Don’t tell me that it’s different because prostitution is illegal, because 1.) it is not illegal everywhere, and 2.) it is also illegal to violate your Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Every Judge and lawyer perjures himself when he decides or argues on a case contrary to the United States Constitution. Every Judge or lawyer is an accessory after the fact if he knowingly assists a felon to evade justice. What convicts the Christian woman is the same that convicts the Christian Judge or attorney – God Almighty. He has offered no caveat in His Law for the excuse, “Just doing my job.” As Officers of the Court, a lawyer ought, and a Christian lawyer must, “form his own independent opinion, in God’s fear, whether in assisting each applicant he will be assisting wrong, or asserting falsehood.” Discussions at 16. Otherwise, lawyers are nothing more than accessories, hired-guns, or mercenaries of the lowest order.
In 1996, homosexual activists caused the foundations of states rights to “sustain serious erosion” and coupled with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was responsible for the legalisation of sodomy. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 at 2482 (2003). Supreme Court nominee John Roberts helped erode those foundations by aiding and abetting unrighteous sodomites in the formulation of their arguments before the Supreme Court. Less than ten years ago, the States were permitted to exercise their lawful police powers. Then comes John Roberts to pave the way for homosexual “special rights,” leading to Lawrence v. Texas and the denial to the States their lawful authority and duty to prosecute sodomy. Though there was a level between attorney Robert’s actions in 1996 and the Supreme Court’s decision in 2003, he was an accessory before the fact, advancing the cause of felonious conduct (sodomy) and unrighteousness.
Judge Roberts is at best a “lawyer’s lawyer,” a hired-gun, a mercenary of the lowest order. He is willing, and quite able, to advocate the position of the highest bidder without taking any personal review of whether the cause is righteous. When it came to advocating for homosexuals and against the homeowners and employers who did not want to be required to associate with them, (then) attorney Roberts used his tongue and talents so effectively that he laid the road that led to the legalisation of sodomy and will, most suspect, lead to homosexual marriage. Judge Roberts bears the responsibility for the legalisation of sodomy and likely the future endowment of sodomy-based marriage.
For our baseness as Americans in continually electing officials with no intention to perform their Oaths, and for the sycophancy of the Evangelical Conservatives, despite John Roberts’ personal and professional unfitness for the office, we, for our sin, deserve this accomplice of evil on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Scott T. Whiteman a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland, and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004. He is available for radio or TV interviews, or for speeches, by contacting him at (410) 760-7897 or by using our Forum
Back to The Covenant News
Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics