OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 124 “Getting somebody confirmed to the Supreme Court has never been a slam dunk, in part because the Court’s role in American government has always been controversial”

March 25, 2021

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

    THE SECOND TURN of events was an opportunity rather than a crisis. At the end of April, Supreme Court justice David Souter called to tell me he was retiring from the bench, giving me my first chance to fill a seat on the highest court in the land.
     Getting somebody confirmed to the Supreme Court has never been a slam dunk, in part because the Court’s role in American government has always been controversial. After all, the idea of giving nine unelected, tenured-for-life lawyers in black robes the power to strike down laws passed by a majority of the people’s representatives doesn’t sound very democratic. But since Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court case that gave the Court final say on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and established the principle of judicial review over the actions of the Congress and the president, that’s how our system of checks and balances has worked. In theory, Supreme Court justices don’t “make law” when exercising these powers; instead, they’re supposed to merely “interpret” the Constitution, helping to bridge how its provisions were understood by the framers and how they apply to the world we live in today.
     For the bulk of constitutional cases coming before the Court, the theory holds up pretty well. Justices have for the most part felt bound by the text of the Constitution and precedents set by earlier courts, even when doing so results in an outcome they don’t personally agree with. Throughout American history, though, the most important cases have involved deciphering the meaning of phrases like “due process,” “privileges and immunities,” “equal protection,” or “establishment of religion”—terms so vague that it’s doubtful any two Founding Fathers agreed on exactly what they meant. This ambiguity gives individual justices all kinds of room to “interpret” in ways that reflect their moral judgments, political preferences, biases, and fears. That’s why in the 1930s a mostly conservative Court could rule that FDR’s New Deal policies violated the Constitution, while forty years later a mostly liberal Court could rule that the Constitution grants Congress almost unlimited power to regulate the economy. It’s how one set of justices, in Plessy v. Ferguson, could read the Equal Protection Clause to permit “separate but equal,” and another set of justices, in Brown v. Board of Education, could rely on the exact same language to unanimously arrive at the opposite conclusion.
     It turned out that Supreme Court justices made law all the time.
     Over the years, the press and the public started paying more attention to Court decisions and, by extension, to the process of confirming justices. In 1955, southern Democrats—in a fit of pique over the Brown decision—institutionalized the practice of having Supreme Court nominees appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be grilled on their legal views. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision focused further attention on Court appointments, with every nomination from that point on triggering a pitched battle between pro-choice and anti-abortion forces. The high-profile rejection of Robert Bork’s nomination in the late 1980s and the Clarence Thomas–Anita Hill hearings in the early 1990s—in which the nominee was accused of sexual harassment—proved to be irresistible TV drama.

Let me respond to one sentence:

Getting somebody confirmed to the Supreme Court has never been a slam dunk, in part because the Court’s role in American government has always been controversial.

Liberals seem to have their candidates get through with no false accusations of gang banging like Brett Kavanaugh had thrown at him. In fact, Judge Bork was as brilliant and accomplished judge but he was turned down by Democrats for no good reason.

As a professing Christian you should put pro-life judges on the court!!

I wish you would have relied on the Bible to guide you to choose pro-life judges!!!

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Francis Schaeffer Life and Thought Overview


His Life
Looking at the impassioned yet tongue tied young man in the early 1930’s at a Presbyterian youth group, it would be hard to tell that he was going to be one of the most influential Evangelicals of the 20th century. He was Francis Schaeffer. At the youth group meeting Shaeffer had risen to his feet to dispute the claims of a minister who was giving a talk entitled, “Why I Know Jesus is Not the Son of God, and How I Know the Bible is Not the Word of God” (Burson and Walls 37). Although not able to come up with many sound arguments, he felt the urge to confront falsehood. This burning desire would drive him to investigate and find answers to the problems that plagued humanity and Christianity, especially issues relating to the moral decay of western civilization.Francis August Schaeffer was born in 1912 into a blue collar, hard-working family in Germantown Pennsylvania. His parents were not intellectuals by any means, His father worked with his hands and had hopes of Francis becoming an engineer (Burson and Walls 35). His family was not very religious, but did attend a Presbyterian Church that had slipped off into liberalism. Francis was later to discover that liberal theology was one of the greatest maladies of the western world. Francis started reading the Bible around the age of 17 and believed it, he soon realized that he was alone at his church in his conviction, but the Lord quickly lead him to the Ashmead Place church, which held to the authority of God’s word (Burson and Walls 36).Sensing the call of God on his life, Francis enrolled in college in order to get on a trajectory to seminary, which was against his parents wishes. After getting his bachelors he enrolled in Westminister Theological Seminary, where he learned from J. Greshom Machen and Cornelious Van Til. Both of these men had a profound effect on Schaeffer’s understanding of the world. After graduating he became a minister and lived in Missouri for 10 years, then moved his family to Switzerland in 1948 (Burson and Walls 39).This move came about after the American Council of Church’s had asked him to tour Europe in 1947 to asses the need of the church’s in war torn areas. Schaeffer had developed a taste for art and used this trip to visit many of the famous cathedrals and museums. What startled him the most was the amazing beauty of human accomplishment put in contrast with the devastation of human depravity (Burson and Walls 40).
The Schaeffer’s started a ministry in Switzerland called L’Abri, a Christian commune which was like a christian youth hostel and college. He began giving lectures that gave orthodox Christian answers to the problems students were facing. In 1968 he published two books which are still widely influential today, Escape from Reason and The God Who Is There (Morris 12). Over the course of the next 16 years, until his death in 1984, he wrote 21 books in total and many other booklets and articles (Schaeffer, The Great 12).His Thought
Dr. Schaeffer divided his work into three categories, “My earlier books dealt especially with the intellectual questions of philosophy and matters in the area of culture. Then there were the books dealing with the Christian life and the church. More recently my books have dealt especially with the area of civil needs and the need of law and government” (The Great 11). In a summary of Schaeffers work, Thomas Morris divided his apologetic’s up into metaphysics, morality and epistemology (23). This paper is a look at Francis Schaeffer’s views on morality, which will take into perspective books in each of the categories Schaeffer mentioned.
Schaeffer’s book How Should We Then Live; A Study of the Rise and Fall of Western Civilization, explains his view of the origin of the western world and its moral decline. He took the classical view that Western thought originated with the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, their ideas influencing Roman culture which in turn spread them over Europe by military conquest. What made his view unique was that he saw the transition in thought to modernism starting with Aquinas, rather than Descartes (Schaeffer, Escape 11).Thomas Aquinas introduced the concept of nature and grace, which Schaeffer saw as the beginning of a long series of divisions between the metaphysical and the actual (Escape 9). Whatever is metaphysical is placed above in what he called the “upper story” and whatever could be known by the senses was placed below. These divisions moved from nature versus grace to universals versus particulars by the neo-platonists of the late 15th century (Schaeffer, Escape 17). Kant brought this division to freedom versus nature (Schaeffer, Escape 33), then Hegel and Kierkegaard brought the division to faith versus rationality (Schaeffer, Escape 42).

Schaeffer saw all these divisions as an attempt to make humanity autonomous. As seen from these divisions, without God, man becomes an irrational nonentity. With the autonomous world view man died “as far as rationality and logic are concerned” (Schaeffer, Escape 53). He realized that man cannot live like this, he has to have meaning; “man made in the image of God cannot live as though he is nothing and thus he places in the upper story all sorts of desperate things” (Schaeffer, Escape 53).
This autonomous view of humanity led to the death of values (Schaeffer, How Should 205). The western world had once been led by a Christian consensus which came out of a long history dating back to the Roman Empire. This consensus had waned at times, but had experienced a re-birth in the reformation and the great awakening, but with the enlightenment and the industrial revolution this consensus began to die. Enlightenment rationalism took control of the arts, music, higher education and eventually theology. The Higher critics of the 18th and 19th century were just the theological out workings of the enlightenment, they excluded God and built their own world view (Schaeffer, The Great 35).

Schaeffer saw human thought working in progressively downward steps, starting with philosophy then art and music, then out to general culture and lastly landing on theology (Escape 43). Once the line of dispair reached theology it was not long before the mainline denominations began to crumble. Splits over Biblical authority and foundational doctrines left the 20th century church in ruins. Schaeffer saw this as the precursor to the moral breakdown of the 1960’s (The Great 35).

After the denominational collapse people were left without any moral foundation. “As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence” (Schaeffer, How Should 205). The next generation quickly realized that there was no meaning to what their parents believed about life “because the only hope of meaning had been placed in the area of non-reason, drugs were brought into the picture” (Schaeffer, How Should 206).
Drug abuse had been around for a long time, but the existential philosophers promoted it as an ideology; Timothy Leary even went so far as to say that drugs were the sacraments of a new religion (Schaeffer, How Should 206). The other ideology that arose was the “New-Left”, encompassing all types of political ideas that are often classed as “liberal” (Schaeffer, How Should 208). These new left political ideas ranged from feminism to abortion, free speech to nudity. Schaeffer saw all this as a rebellion against the values of their parents generation. “The young people wanted more to life than personal peace and affluence. They were right in their analysis of the problem, but they were mistaken in their solutions” (How Should 208).

Schaeffer showed that the humanistic view of man fails. “It fails to explain man. It fails to explain the universe and its form. It fails to stand up in the area of epistemology” (Schaeffer, He Is There 64).
“Christianity offers an entirely different set of presuppositions
. The other presuppositions simply do not meet the need” (Schaeffer, He Is There 65). A presupposition, as defined by Shaeffer is “a belief or theory which is assumed before the next step in the logical development. Such a prior postulate often consciously or unconsciously affects the way a person subsequently responds” (Morris 18). The presuppositions that Schaeffer was advocating have been summed up into two major assumptions by Morris. First, people have to accept belief in the personal God of the Bible. Second, they need to accept orthodox faith as providing the only answer to their inner and outer experience (Morris 19-21).

These presuppositions are needed as a foundation for the only view of ourselves and the world that matches our experience and gives meaning to humanity. This gives Christianity the authority to stand against those that would either distort the facts of history in order to return to a golden age of Christian dominance, or accommodate to the spirit of the age, distorting the facts of history and orthodox Christian doctrine (Schaeffer, The Great 118).

Works Cited

Burson, Scott R., and Jerry L. Walls. C.S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Print.

Morris, Thomas V. Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics: a Critique. Chicago: Moody, 1976. Print.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Escape from Reason. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1968. Print.

—. He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1972. Print.

—. How Should We Then Live?: the Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappan, NJ: F. H. Revell, 1976. Print.

—. The Great Evangelical Disaster. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1984. Print.

Schaeffer, Francis A., and C. Everett Koop. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old

Tappan, NJ: F.H. Revell, 1979. Print.

The New King James Bible: New Testament. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1979. PrintPosted by Michael Donahue at 8:41 AM

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding FathersPresident Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersPresident Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticutjohn witherspoonjonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas TimesFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian RogersFrancis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: