A missionary I know, Cal Zastrow, said, “If the primary goal of voting is winning, instead of being a faithful
witness for Christ, then all kinds of evil grows.” I believe that as
Christians, more than being patriotic to our nation, we are called to be faithful
ambassadors of the Kingdom
of God, and to further
that kingdom. We do this, in part,
through involvement in earthly matters like grocery shopping, like changing
diapers, like giving food to the poor, and like voting.
This week, respected theologian Wayne Grudem endorsed Donald
Trump for president in an article,
“Why
Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice”. A friend shared the article on Facebook. I admit that I was shocked at how much I
disagree with such an influential evangelical Christian. I was overwhelmed by how many things seemed
1) unsubstantiated; 2) rational leaps; and most grievingly, 3) misinterpretations
of Scripture. There were other things
that may be qualified as more differences of opinion. These do not surprise me;
I am used to being in a minority in what I believe about how government should
function. For a brief discussion of
these things, see Footnote
[1].
The first category of concern, things that seem to me to be
unsubstantiated, mostly fall into three subsections. They are either wild speculations or what I
believe to be delusions of fear. Most of
these have to do with the future. The
third subsection is ignoring relevant truths.
The treatment of third parties at least excludes some truth:
the truth of why our political system allows third parties; the truth of what
some third party candidates (with far more demonstrable integrity and
intelligence than Trump or Hillary) have said they will do as president
[2],[3]; the truth of history,
that parties have fallen and risen[4],
including the Republican Party which was a new, third party when Lincoln was
elected president
[5]; the
truth that the reason we don’t presently see third parties as viable is because
we have consistently refused to vote for third party candidates who better
represent us; and the truth that votes for third parties have impacts on future
elections.
This year’s election
is not an unusual opportunity. Every
year there is an evil candidate, or rather many evil candidates (for many third
parties put forward evil candidates), which we the people have an opportunity
of defeating. Sort of: I can try to persuade you to help me to
defeat evil. I can pray. And I can vote. It may not actually be within my power to
defeat the Democrat or any other candidate.
Grudem believes that Trump sincerely wants what is best for America. I am not in a position to say that this is
false. I don’t have evidence that Trump
is plotting the demise of the United
States.
I get a different impression, though, that Trump actually wants to
further his own interests and to build his own ego. I am wondering what evidence Dr. Grudem has
for his belief in Trump’s motives.
Will the election be close?
(If he didn’t believe the election will be close, would the arguments in
his article be the same?) We’re three
months from Election Day. Polls of the
popular vote, even when factoring in the Libertarian and Green Party
candidates, show Hillary Clinton neck and neck with Donald Trump
[6]. But elections in the
United States are not decided by
the popular vote. They are decided by
electors in each state. News outlets
[7],[8],
analyzing polling data and voting patterns in previous cycles, have Hillary in
the lead by about 50 electoral votes likely to go to her. Estimates have her with around 200, Trump
with around 150, and around 180 votes from a number of states too close to
guess. But if you look at the breakdown
of how strong each candidate is in the votes analysts think they are likely to
get, you can see that Hillary has far more votes in the “almost certain” and
“very likely” categories, whereas about half of Trump’s fall into the “leans
towards” Trump description. If third
party campaigns are somewhat successful, as many Republicans fear, more of the
independent voters will go to the Libertarian or other conservative parties
than would be persuaded to vote Republican, and Hillary’s lead could be even
bigger.
Given the extent of the criminal behavior already documented
on Hillary Clinton, without producing prosecution or sufficient public outrage
[9],
it is very unlikely that “additional shocking email disclosures” would have any
new effect. Obama has endorsed her
[10]
and has nothing to lose (except before God) from standing behind her and
abstaining from prosecution.
The article gives a description of liberalism, “pro-abortion,
pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big
government…” The author applies it to
Clinton and Obama, but the definition can just as honestly be applied to Trump
[11].
Therefore,
we will not defeat “that kind of liberalism” by voting for Trump. He is that kind of liberal. He may practice it to a different degree, but
the essence is the same.
The judicial supremacy described in this article may be a
dominant theory, but it is not true, constitutionally speaking. We should hold judges accountable for the
subversion they commit by usurping the rule of law (the US Constitution) and
exceeding their jurisdiction.
Impeachment could moderate their
extremism. And it could remove actual
vigilante judges from office. Then the
activism wouldn’t be locked-in. States
and presidents, especially, are obligated to obey the supreme law of the land,
the United States Constitution, and there is an argument to be made for states
and executives to defy broad applications of specific decisions by the
courts. That is, Obergefell, for
example, wouldn’t have to apply to any actual laws (court rulings are not laws)
or states or cities or policies that were not included in the original case
being brought. This is the position that
Alabama Justice Roy Moore seems to be most recently in trouble for
[12]. There are also third party presidential
candidates
[13],
[14] in the
current election who agree with at least some of these answers to the Supreme
Court argument, and would be willing to act accordingly. I do appreciate Grudem bringing these
problems to light, even if I disagree with his submit-to-the-corrupt-system
solution.
Grudem mentions several close votes on the Supreme Court
over the past 30 years, such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Act
[15]
and Hobby Lobby’s conscience and religious freedom case against being forced by
Obamacare to pay for employees’ abortifacient contraceptives. Some of these have gone in ways we agree
with, submitting to the clear language of the Constitution and upholding
liberty. Many significant others have
not.
Republican-appointed judges have a long history of assenting to
egregious Supreme Court decisions. Four
of five Supreme Court justices giving us the decision in Utah v. Strieff[16],
weakening the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution’s protections
against unreasonable searches[17],
were Republican-appointed[18]. Republican justices have given us Roe v. Wade[19],
upheld Obamacare[20],
and decided Obergefell[21]
(attempting to mandate homosexual marriage).
I don’t see how a “right to abortion” could be found in the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, nor how it would be
substantially different from the Supreme Court rulings already dominating our
political climate. Groups seeking to end
abortion are seeking to have
Roe v. Wade overturned. Some are doing this, not by increasing laws
that would regulate abortion
[16], but by using the wording of the
Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause. These laws include so-called “Personhood”
legislation
[22]
and the “Sanctity of Life Act”
[23]. With an unaccountable judiciary, the court is
likely to strike such laws down. They
are, perhaps, slightly more likely to “with one decision” remove all
abortion-regulating laws from our country, as Dr. Grudem fears. I don’t see how a more liberal court would be
much more likely to do this than the court we already have, or the one we had
when Roe was decided.
In the history of our country, few significant Supreme Court
decisions have been overturned by that court
[24]. Fashions have shifted. The Constitution has been amended. Wars have been fought. These have affected the application of some
rulings. Christians want
Roe v. Wade to be overturned. We want justices who uphold justice and the
rule of law. Republicans have not given
us such radically righteous justices.
It is an extremely unlikely hope that
Donald Trump (who is more liberal than previous Republican presidents) would
appoint enough justices who would oppose the trend of popular opinion (our
country is more liberal than ever) on abortion, and overturn Roe v.
Wade. I cannot find such a wild
speculation to be even a considerable justification for voting for a man who
disregards morality (unashamed adultery
[25],
owning a strip club
[26],
lying
[11],
essentially stealing
[11])
and justice and the rule of law (promotion of unconstitutional laws, executive
orders
[27],
and policies) himself.
At multiple points, Dr. Grudem indicates that he is a
proponent of state-regulation of things like marriage and abortion. On both of these issues I believe he is
wrong.
Under the United
States Constitution, Article IV: Section 1[28],
separate states must honor the laws of other states. If
Massachusetts
“marries” same-sex partners, then
Connecticut
is obligated to consider the couple married if they visit or even relocate
there. Thus marriage ought not to be
excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal government. Regarding abortion,
the Constitution requires[29],
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” Thus the
federal government also has a responsibility to enforce this part of the
Constitution, taking only an oversight role if the states are in
compliance. States allowing abortion are
not in compliance. The solution to the
immoral and unjust status of our laws is not just to have Supreme Court
decisions return authority to the states.
We have a bigger problem.
Many of the threats to our religious liberty are not coming
from courts, but from private businesses or from other branches of
government. Trump, if he were to be
elected as our executive, is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda
[30],
at least, and would no doubt be influenced by that perspective when “executing”
his office. That is, we wouldn’t need a
liberal Supreme Court to infringe our rights; the president (whose power via
executive order has gone basically unchallenged for decades) would be
committing the very trespasses we’re afraid of the court for.
Even if I prove so wrong, and Trump is electable, and Trump
does nominate an honest and wise and selfless judge, and the judge passes the
scrutiny of the Senate to have the appointment confirmed, and if the court can
hear and rule on cases in such a way as to reign in the courts – we will still
have the problem of a lazy, impotent Congress and a largely-unchecked executive
branch (the latter of which would likely be exacerbated by a Trump presidency
as by a Clinton one – Trump has promised to use executive orders to accomplish
his will
[27]).
While the argument that historically, politicians have not “gone
back on most of what [they have] promised to do, especially on issues that are
crucially important in the election,” might be accurate (and I have doubts even
about this), it would be hard to apply to Donald Trump for two reasons. The first is that he is demonstrably a liar
[11]. And the second is that he has, in this one
campaign, made many contradictory “promises” about what he will do.
It
actually seems incredibly gullible to let a politician take many possible
positions that could appeal to different constituencies, and to assume the one
he’ll actually faithfully come through on is the position that you prefer.
Since the article focuses on the issue of the Supreme Court,
let me here briefly address the things that Trump has said about the court
during this presidential campaign. Early
on, Trump suggested that his sister would make a “phenomenal” appointment to
the Supreme Court. She’s already a
federal judge, and she’s not a conservative
[31]. Afterward, he said he was joking
[32]. Then, he said he would release a list of 5-10
names of potential Supreme Court appointees, and guarantee that, if president,
he would pick from that list
[33]. Then he released a list of 11 names
[34]. Within days of publishing this heralded list,
he said he was not guaranteeing that he would appoint a judge from the list
[35]. There is also the chance that he would
attempt to appoint one, and then back down at the least resistance from the
Senate, and appoint someone else.
Trump has also taken confusing positions on
Israel. Dr. Grudem says that Trump has promised to
vigorously defend
Israel. In this same campaign, he has also said that
he will remain neutral
[36]
on
Israel’s dispute with
Palestine. But a top advisor has also said that Trump
might be against a two-state solution
[37]. On the other hand, and in contradiction to
the fearful portrayal of “facts” that Grudem’s article gives, we have decades
of speeches and actions by Hillary
[38],[39]
that, even if we don’t fully trust or agree with them, distance her from
Obama’s snubbing of Israel. Grudem’s
only evidence that Hillary would be worse than Donald on
Israel is that Hillary worked for
and is of the same political party as Obama.
She is, however, also married to President Bill Clinton, of the same
party, whose treatment of Israel
[40],[41]
was very different from Obama’s
[42].
My second concern was about Wayne Grudem’s reasoning. If he has a way of connecting principles to
his applications, he is not including them in the article. He asserts that it is OK to vote for someone
bad (he calls them “flawed”) because he will do more good for the nation than
his opponent. But he doesn’t justify why
he believes this is OK. This is
pragmatism. I am not opposed to we humans
evaluating the world in order to figure out what would be most effective – so
long as, in the flow-chart of decision-making, we consider those things after
we have determined if we could do them without committing an unrighteous act. A good end does not make the “means”
moral.
Grudem believes Trump will do the most good for the
nation. Some of this is founded in
conservative policies. Some is founded
in speculation (particularly on the power and goodness of the Supreme Court
under Trump). Some is based on
subjective consideration of some things as more important than others. That is, if Trump is too busy doing harm to
this nation to do it the good that his supporters hope, this reasoning might
turn out to be inaccurate. I see
potential, especially in foreign relations, for Trump to do great harm to our
country, including getting us into wars resulting in American casualties. And in this one area, I believe that he may
be likely to get us into bigger wars than Clinton
would. There are also the more abstract
ideas of the good or harm of having such a man as Trump represent conservatives
and Christians in this country. What
does that mean for the future of the Church here? What about the future of the Republican
Party? What influence are conservatives
and Christians left when we have demonstrated that we are willing to compromise
– or worse, been led to justify the wickedness we are endorsing?
I am just as
horrified that a vote may help Trump as I am that a vote may help Clinton. This whole line of reasoning, that a vote for
a third party is actually helping the slightly-leading candidate, has redefined
what a vote
[43]
means. A vote, to my mind, ought to be
viewed as a contribution to collectively making a choice. Like every choice, one choice excludes
another. If I say that my favorite
flavor is chocolate, then I am automatically stating that vanilla and strawberry
are not my favorites. A vote is an
endorsement, approval, help. I am
helping whom I vote for. And there will
be all sorts of indirect consequences for what I choose.
Some sure indirect consequences of Christians not voting
either Trump or
Clinton
are: Republicans will receive less votes than they believed themselves entitled
to. The influence of third parties will
be increased for the future. Speculating
now, Republicans in the future may feel less confident that the liberal
candidates they’ve been putting forward are electable. They may begin to reform, to shift to the
more conservative end. Or the system
might be too corrupt already. The powers
behind the GOP may be too ideologically against justice, righteousness, the
Constitution, economic liberty, and limited government to nominate conservative
candidates, even if it might help the Republicans to gain power. In which case, enter speculation category
number two: third parties. If lesser
parties collectively get more attention and votes this election cycle, it
strengthens the chances of any third party to gain momentum for the
future. If one third party gets a lot
more attention and votes, it makes that one all the more powerful for future
elections.
There are federal laws that give campaign money[44]
to political parties based on if they reached a certain threshold of the
popular vote in the previous election cycle.
There are state laws that grant ballot access based on thresholds of
votes in that state[45]. (In Colorado[46],
I’m not sure if votes for president apply.
The legal language is confusing to me.)
There is market pressure for websites and television and radio to give
attention to things their audiences care about.
And votes indicate that we care.
The whole election paradigm in the United States could be
shifting.
Grudem suggests that we should see Trump’s vice presidential
pick as an indicator of the trend of his policy shifts. Trump is, the author says, moving towards the
conservative. While it is possible for a
politician’s choice for vice president to reflect one’s values, in a man famed
for “closing the deal”, I have a different hypothesis: that he picked someone
who would appeal to a demographic that Trump hadn’t secured by his own
personality and variously-contradicting policies. Maybe he picked Pence to lure conservative
Republicans to vote for Trump. This
would also be a tactic seemingly consistent with those of past presidential
candidates.
The third point I raised is – coming from a theologian,
seminary professor, and author of a much-used systematic theology – by far the
most concerning. This is his use of
Scripture in his argument. I am
certainly interested in learning how the Bible applies to the decisions that we
make in this life. So I am not objecting
to a Christian leader making a statement about politics, or bringing the Bible
into it. Rather, I am concerned by the
hermeneutics he uses.
The first, general subject of biblical relevance is whether
we can classify such a man as Donald Trump as “evil” or “wicked”, or if we
should just remind ourselves that “nobody’s perfect” and consider him “flawed”,
but decent as statesmen go. I will agree
with Wayne Grudem when he says that Trump is flawed. I probably see more flaws than Dr. Grudem
does, given the differences I have with him on policy issues. And I agree with Dr. Grudem’s list of
character flaws in Donald Trump. I have
some to add, as well
[11].
He is
a liar and an adulterer. He has, under
cover of law (eminent domain for private use and intentional bankruptcy),
stolen for his own gain. For such
things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience
[47], and we are
commanded to have nothing to do with these things
[48].
I’m sure, like every evil dictator in history, that Trump
has his good points. The Bible
acknowledges that no one is righteous
[49]. We have all fallen short
[50].
But
the Bible also categorizes people into righteous[51]
and wicked[52],
and warns against associating with the wicked. I especially commend to you the Proverbs
[53] for a study of
which type of people fall into which category.
Christians have been cleansed from the unfruitful works of
darkness, and are therefore not classified as evil. Trump, by his own testimony
[54],
has not repented, has not sought God’s forgiveness. He has not been made clean by Jesus’
blood. So, he remains where his
enumerated sins have put him, in the category of an evil man.
The Bible records what Moses’ father-in-law advised the
Israelites about what kind of men to appoint to their government:
"Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God,
men of truth, hating covetousness...." - Exodus 18:21
[55] Wayne Grudem does not mention this verse when
he declares that despite the wicked character of Trump, voting for him is a
morally good choice. Instead, he uses a
passage from Jeremiah
[56],
about the Israelites seeking the welfare of the nation in which they are
exiled. He then goes on to expound what
he believes is meant by “welfare”: that which is most likely to bring the best
results. And from there, he says that to
vote for anyone who doesn’t have the best chance of beating evil and liberal
and full of bad-policies Hillary is disobeying this instruction. He claims that this command to
Israel
is to give us the “overriding question” we must ask ourselves when voting. I wonder why the overriding question does not
come from Exodus 18:21 that I quoted above, or Proverbs, or Romans
[57]?
Perhaps the verse could be better interpreted as exhorting
the Israelites to pray or warning the Jews against insurrection? Something like Timothy’s exhortation
[58] for Christians
to “pray for… all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and reverence”?
How would we actually foretell what will be “most likely to
bring the best results”?
It is far less arrogant to decide things
based on truth and what is morally good in itself – and maybe on direction
straight from God – than to weigh out pros and cons of policies and
possibilities and contingencies.
Which items hold more weight as we’re weighing? National security? Jobs and taxes? Civil rights? Abortion? Marriage? Education? Good Christians can argue all day long on
which should be weightier. But when we
vote for president, I contend that is not what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to choose a leader
(specifically one who will carry out the laws in existence, including the
Constitution, to command our military in time of war, and to be the head of our
foreign relations). And a nation is
blessed when the ruler is righteous
[59].
Which brings up an interesting point. What
about God’s blessing? What about
God’s power to deliver and guide and reform?
If we’re being pragmatic about what is possible from a human standpoint,
the way our government is in the habit of functioning (not even trying to exert
ourselves to reign it in towards how it should, under the Constitution, be
functioning) – then we’re leaving out part of the picture. Is God more likely to do good to a people who
choose evil individuals for rulers? Or
is God able to do much good with our faithful choices? If a
remnant of Christians abides by its conscience and votes for actually good,
actually qualified candidates – don’t you think God is more likely to show our
whole nation mercy for our sakes?
Next, Wayne Grudem says that defeating Hillary would be a
good thing to do, and that since supporting Trump is a way to do that, it is a
good thing to do. According to James
4:17
[60], he
says, if we know a good thing to do and don’t do it, we’re sinning. But what is the intended application of the
verse? It is good to do my dishes. It is good to do my friend’s dishes. It is good to be a sidewalk counselor outside
abortion clinics. It is good to perform
ultrasounds at a pregnancy center. It is
good to pray. It is good to write
books. It is good to preach the gospel. It is good to teach doctrine. It is good to rest. It is good to feast. It is good to fast. We cannot possibly do every good thing, all
at once. Is defeating the Democrats the
only good thing to do? In a given
situation, we need to discern the good thing that God wants us to do. If we don’t do the good thing that God wants
us to do, more so if we know what it is, it is sin.
But, as we’re discerning about the “right thing to do”,
let’s take into consideration this other Scripture
: "And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people
slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." - Romans
3:8[61] So even if some good things could
possibly result from our choices, the end does not justify the means. We have to figure out if the choice itself is
evil or good.
There is a quote going around, attributed to C.H. Spurgeon,
“Of two evils, choose neither.” To some
Christians, what seems best to them is to not vote at all in this presidential
election. Wayne Grudem believes this is
also sin, citing Obadiah 1:11. The verse
he quotes could be taken to mean that the Edomites did nothing at all, if it
weren’t for the context
[62],
which describes them cheering for evil and aiding those who were attacking
Israel. Cross reference to Psalm 137:7
[63].
I don’t believe that abstaining from voting is inherently
wrong. There are some times in the Bible
where abstaining from something “good” is advised. Take, for example, Ecclesiastes 5:5: "It
is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay."
Or, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know
that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." - James 3:1 Or,
"The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his
wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone
can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." - Matthew
19:10-11 Or, "And the LORD said to
Gideon, "With the 300 men who lapped I will save you and give the
Midianites into your hand, and let all the others go every man to his
home."" - Judges 7:7 Or, "The LORD will fight for you, and you
have only to be silent."" - Exodus 14:14
So the questions we
need to ask are: Has God given us the obligation to vote? Are we responsible
for the outcome of the election even if we chose a morally acceptable but
arguably less strategic vote? Is it
wrong to choose an evil person as our ruler?
I would exhort everyone, especially Christians, to do all
things out of faith and not out of fear.
Or, at least, that we would fear God alone. Fearing Him, may we be diligent to find out
the truth, to seek His perspective on these matters, and follow His will for us
personally.
Update, October 9, 2016:
Wayne Grudem removed his endorsement and published this apology, in light of recent revelations about Trump's previous moral corruption: Trump's Moral Character and the Election.
Footnotes:
[1] I disagreed with some of Grudem’s approvals of Trump’s
policies and what he considers “most likely”.
Below I mention some.
Lower taxes are good.
They do not in themselves constitute a more just or more limited
government. In fact, if unaccompanied by
a budget a fraction the size of what it has been, lower taxes will only mean
more borrowing, which is a hidden tax on the future
[i]. It is also debatable whether graduated tax
rates are just
[ii].
I am not convinced that Trump would be good at diplomacy
[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii]. He may be convinced that he will not be
manipulated, deceived, or out-strategized by
Russia,
Mexico,
or Middle-Eastern nations, but I am not.
Trump’s “tough guy” persona may be useful in standing up to bullies, or
it may make our international representative into a bully himself. He has said that he would be in favor of
having our military “go after the families of terrorists”
[viii],[ix],
and to, when fighting them, match the level of violence terrorists and
ISIS use
[x]. Victory at the cost of virtue is an
unacceptable goal for me to support. I
am also concerned that it would not be so easy to win a war (without making
many more enemies globally) as Trump seems to think.
My personal belief is that Hillary is rather smart, and
rather interested in maintaining whatever power she can get her hands on. Therefore, I think that she is actually less
likely than Trump to get us into a big war or to alienate our allies. (And if she does, she’ll probably do it
behind the scenes where no one will be able to verify it was her doing
it.)
Both Trump and Hillary have taken contradictory positions on
fracking during this campaign, which perhaps could be characterized at this
time by saying that they believe in local decision-making about fracking
[xi]. I would find it impossible, without prophetic
revelation, to determine what each candidate will actually do for or against
this energy issue.
Trump’s words about health insurance have not always sounded
like they are entirely free-market solutions, even during this campaign season
[xii]. Like many Republicans this year, he does
support repealing – and replacing – Obamacare, apparently with a mixture of
free market solutions and with some sort of forced “safety net” for the poorer
people. Does this mean retaining an
expansion of Medicaid? Something
else? I believe there is a substantial
difference between Hillary Clinton’s intentions for the health care industry,
and that of Donald Trump. But it may be
a difference of degree only.
There are manifold problems with
Obamacare. One of them is the individual
mandate, what I still believe to be an unconstitutional imposition on our
liberties (whatever the Supreme Court says about the penalty being a tax). The second is that the government funding for
these programs is unconstitutional. They
have no enumerated jurisdiction to be spending money on a private citizen’s
health care. Trump’s plan would,
presumably, deal with only one of these objections (the individual
mandate).
From what I have read and heard, there seems to be some debate
about whether Trump owes his so-called business success to his own abilities
[xiii]
to “solve problems and get things done.”
Commentators have pointed out that Trump started with a substantial sum
of money inherited from his father. They
say that his fortune, if invested in mutual funds back in 1982, and left there,
accruing, would be twice what he claims to have made it today through business
acumen
[xiv]. They mention that more than one of his
business ventures has gone bankrupt.
Some of them bring up his wielding of eminent domain for personal gain
(abetted by corrupt politicians)
[xv];
his use of bankruptcy (not paying bills) to pass off the risk of his
investments to those providing the actual goods and services
[xvi];
and that he is defendant in a lawsuit for fraud
[xvii]
in the case of Trump University. There
is even some question as to whether Trump is as wealthy as he claims. All of these things cast doubt on the
prudence of employing Trump to use his reputed problem-solving skills to tackle
the big, nuanced problems the
United
States is facing.
[15] Some people who oppose abortion also oppose these
incremental or compromise regulations.
Some of these people believe all regulations are wrong or
counterproductive
[a],
while others only oppose language in laws that implies that if you follow the
regulations, “then you can kill the baby”
[b].
[21]
Obergefell v.
Hodges was another 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in 2015, all 4
Democrat-appointed judges voting in favor, and Republican-appointed Justice
Kennedy joining them. Wikipedia,
“Obergefell v. Hodges” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
