The Supreme Court and Total Audacity

The Supreme Court and Total Immunity

When Donald Trump made his claim for the total immunity of presidents, I thought it was an outrageous attempt by a guilty, out-of-touch liar making a last-ditch effort to avoid serious criminal convictions in the courts of Georgia, D.C., and Florida. I still believe that. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling last Monday was even more outrageous. It essentially declared that all U.S. presidents are above the law, transforming the presidency into a monarchy.

SCOTUS tried to make a distinction between official, governmental acts (for which the president would be immune) and private, personal actions (for which the president could be criminally liable). At a superficial level, this sounds reasonable, but it is fraught with problems. Almost any action, if it involves any part of the governmental apparatus, can be declared official and, therefore, provide grounds for immunity.

Weaponizing the Federal Government – In the last decade, both Republicans and Democrats have accused the other side of utilizing the instruments of the government (The Department of Justice, the IRS, etc.) to take down political opponents. The prosecution of Hunter Biden and the current charges against Trump are examples of this alleged weaponization. Nevertheless, under the new SCOTUS ruling, if a sitting president gave the order to the DOJ, that act could be an official governmental action and, therefore, the president would be immune.

Trump – Applying the SCOTUS ruling to the cases against Trump, he would probably be declared immune from the charges leveled against him for his actions/inactions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021. He could be declared immune from charges for the mishandling of secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. He would probably be immune from the charge of overturning the election results (eg. phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger) and so on.

Historical Precedent – This SCOTUS ruling goes against all examples in our U.S. history. The founders of our country and the signers of our Constitution had just fought a long war to break free from the “total immunity” of a king. They gave no hint that a president would be “above the law”. They knew that power can lead to corruption and that absolute power “corrupts absolutely”, and therefore they put restrictions and limits on the presidency. Former president Nixon would be provided immunity for his Watergate crime under this ruling.

Crazy Audacity – Trump made another crazy claim. He stated that he made his appeal to the Supreme Court not merely for his own protection, but also to protect Obama and Biden from criminal prosecution. It is tragic when people believe such self-serving lies. No president is above the law. Not Obama. Not Biden. Not Trump.

Biden had a bad debate…Trump lied all night and didn’t answer the questions

Last night’s presidential debate was painful to watch. President Biden did not have a good night. His voice was hoarse, and he stumbled over some of his words. At times, he didn’t finish his train of thought, and at one point he ended an incoherent section with “We beat Medicare”. Even when he was defending some of his successful policies, he was not very persuasive. As the night wore on, Biden got a little better, but the damage was done.

Former president Truimp was more polished. He seemed more restrained than usual, but he also had a bad night. He told a litany of lies that are factually false: migrants commit more crimes than others, he won the 2020 election, and that Biden favors “post-birth abortions”. He refused to answer questions about what he would do regarding climate change, opioid addiction, child care, and the war in Ukraine, even when the commentators repeated their questions two or three times. He did not offer any policy proposals.

Many Americans do not like the two major choices of Biden and Trump. Influential Democrat leaders are urging Biden to step aside to allow someone else to become their party’s nominee. Some governors (like California’s Gavin Newsome) would be stronger than Biden and would shake up the race. If Biden really wants his party to win, he should consider this option.

A Latin American Journal Worth Reading

The Spring issue of our Journal of Latin American Theology is hot off the press! Since 2006 we have published two issues per year, but this issue is one of the very best. It has some excellent articles, book and film reviews and theopoetry.

One of my heroes in Latin American history has been Bartolome de las Casas. He denounced the immoral conquest of the Americas that used Christianity as a pretext. As a bishop, he became the Defender of the Indigenous. He urged Christians to preach the gospel with their lives and not with hypocritical words. Yet even heroes have their flaws. In his article on De las Casas, Luis Tapia Rubio alerts us to some of those flaws and sketches out a better way for Christianity to interact with society.

Most of us who live in the United States are frustrated by the low level of political discourse in our country. We can learn a lot from how Christians in Latin America interface with their political realities. Peruvian theologian Dario Lopez points out the failures and successes of “evangélicos” and their politics in his article “Anointed to Rule: Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the Public Square”. Milton Mejia analyzes the role of Christians in the reconciliation process in Colombia.

Regarding the complex phenomenon of global immigration, the Brazilian Mariani Xavier shares her insights from the Biblical texts. Fabio Salguero Fagoaga addresses the same issue in light of aporophobia, a disdain for the poor. He urges readers to do something quite radical: actually following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Theologian Valdir Steuernagel urges followers of Jesus to share the whole gospel to all peoples. He suggests many Latin American examples. The two examples of theopoetry explore the suggestive themes of a God who does not “sunset” and submerging ourselves in God’s mystery.

Of course, the journal is available on Amazon and the articles can be downloaded from the ATLA data base.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.

The Judge’s ruling ironically favors both Willis and Trump

Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision this morning about the Georgia trial regarding former president Trump’s election interference. On the one hand, the judge decided that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue on the case in spite of her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor. Ironically, his ruling favors both Willis and Trump, but is a setback for the American people.

The good news for Willis is that she can continue her legal career, although the judge criticized her for using poor judgment.

The good news for Trump is that his lawyers now have more fodder to delay this and the other trials until after the November election. Trump knows that a significant number of citizens would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony. It should be obvious to all that his strategy is to stall, stall, stall. If he could just stall until the election, and if he would win, he could make all the trials disappear. Even if he were guilty, he would be “above the law”.

I am disappointed by everyone who favors this stalling tactic. Our citizens deserve to know whether Trump is found to be “guilty” or “not guilty” by a jury of his peers… before the election. In our country, nobody is supposed to be above the law, not even a president. Stalling is an attempt to distort justice.

The trial is to decide whether Trump tried to steal the 2020 election in Georgia. He officially lost the election in Georgia by 11,779 votes. We have a recording of the phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a conservative Republican) on January 2, 2021. I suggest listening to the entire conversation, but here are the pertinent quotes:

Raffensperger – “Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong…. We believe that we do have an accurate election.”

Trump – “Look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes.”

Most objective people who listen to the tape acknowledge that the former president attempted to steal the election. Listen to his own words… and you be judge.

The State of the Union address last night and the Republican response: Facts and Fiction

Last night, President Biden gave his State of the Union address. Before (and during?) his speech, Democrats were anxious that the president would make many gaffes, would come across as out of touch, and would appear a bit senile. Nevertheless, he surpassed the expectations of his friends and foes alike. He was coherent, fiery, and passionate. His frequent ad libs were on target. He even joked about his age.

In these addresses, presidents highlight their successes. Biden did this with a long litany of achievements, and his fellow Democrats roared their approval. Most of his affirmations were factually accurate, although some were misleading (example, taxes paid by corporations. See Fact checking Biden’s State of the Union | CNN Politics for the evidence that overwhelmingly confirms (and occasionally challenges) the accuracy of his statements.

Biden also tackled immigration, one of his weakest issues. He advocated for the immigration bill passed by the Senate and waiting for a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill, largely written by conservative Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma. What are the facts?

Is it the toughest immigration bill of our generation? Yes.
Did Republicans originally support it? Yes.
Is it supported by the union of Border Patrol officers? Yes.
Did former President Trump communicate with Republican congressional representatives to not vote on the bill?
Is this because immigration is his best campaign issue and not a challenge to be resolved? Yes.
Is calling it a crisis and not voting on it in Congress hypocrisy? Yes.
Let’s have the vote!

The Republican response was delivered by Katie Britt, a Senator from Alabama. It was good to see an elected official from a younger generation. Although she was too dramatic for my taste, I agree with her statement that people are only as good as their word. Is our word honest, accurate, full of integrity? Sadly, her few affirmations did not match the truth. She said, “We have the worst inflation in 40 years” (present tense). That is false. Although inflation rose to 9.1% in June 2022, it is now 3.1%. Instead of criticizing Biden on this issue, she should have given him credit. On the topic of immigration, she conveniently forgot to mention that Trump had promised he would “build the wall and make Mexico pay for it”. Of course, the former president did not keep either promise.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was sitting behind the President and was in clear view the entire evening. He has been roundly criticized for not applauding enough. Although I strongly disagree with him on some issues (for example, not bringing the Senate foreign aid bill up for a vote in the House), last night he did urge members of his own party to show respect for the office of the presidency. He applauded when he agreed with Biden and respectfully kept quiet when he did not.

We the people have the responsibility to seek and speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Although our political preferences do shape what we see, if we work hard enough, we can overcome our biases, and reach some common ground of truth. For the sake of future generations, let’s seek those truths.

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Getting older! It happens to all of us. Although increased wisdom can come with added years, many of us also experience a decline in our physical and mental abilities. It can be difficult to contemplate intentionally reducing our public activities due to this decline.

This is the situation before us in our national political situation. A week ago, special counsel Robert Hur issued his report in which he concluded that President Joe Biden was not guilty of any criminal activity in his handling of sensitive government documents. Nevertheless, he also wrote that Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. Biden’s mental gaffes are well-known. In his attempt to refute the poor memory accusation, he gave a talk in which he confused the leaders of Egypt and Mexico.

On the other hand, former President Donald Trump has also committed his share of memory gaffes. The most recent was a campaign speech in which he confused Republican Nikki Haley with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi. Both men are of advanced age and make many mental mistakes. So do I. Although I am not as old as Biden and Trump, I am not far behind. I show the wear and tear of my years in my body and in my mind.

Should Biden or Trump drop out of the race for the presidency at this late date? Is there a precedent? Yes, there is. Back in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of his race for re-election in March. I personally believe that the two main political parties (and therefore, the nation itself) would be better off, if Trump or Biden (or both) would drop out. Age and mental acuity are not the only issues. Biden’s handling of the border crisis has not been great (although Republican representatives in Congress are also at fault). Trump’s legal problems are even worse. He has already been found guilty of sexual assault/rape and financial fraud. If the other trials take place this year, he will likely be convicted of other, serious crimes.

Who do I suggest take the place of these men? Although I disagree with some of her policy proposals, Nikki Haley would do a far, far better job as president than Trump. In my opinion, he is morally repugnant, at all levels. On the Democrat side, among the many potential candidates, I would like to see Michelle Obama. She is smart, and of even more importance, very wise due to her life experiences. In addition, her life partner would make a great first “First Gentleman”.

Who Really Won in Iowa? It Depends How You Spin It.

Iowa celebrated its presidential caucus on Monday. Due to the frigid temperatures, voter turn out was lower than expected, but over 100,000 Iowan Republicans braved the weather and participated in the caucuses. Who won? It depends on who is spinning it.

On the one hand, Donald Trump won with about 51% of the votes. Ron DeSantis came in second place with 21% and Nikki Haley in third with 19%. This was the largest victory in the history of the Iowa caucus. From this perspective, it is extremely likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee for president. Most of the other principal candidates have dropped out. Haley has a small window of opportunity. She would have to win the primary in New Hampshire next week, then ride the momentum to win in her home state of South Carolina plus some victories on Super Tuesday. DeSantis has almost no possibility.

On the other hand, there are troubling signs for Trump. Although 51% voted for Trump, 49% of Iowa Republican caucus participants voted against Trump, by selecting other non-Trump candidates. (For example, if Obama had sat out for four years after his first term as president, and only received 51% in Iowa, nobody would describe it as a victory).

In addition, the entrance polls revealed that about one third of Republicans would not vote for Trump in the general election if he were convicted of crimes in federal courts. Although he is currently faring well against Biden in a hypothetical match up, he cannot afford to lose a third of Republican voters. That is why Trump and his lawyers are trying as hard as they can to delay the court hearings until after November.

We, the American people, deserve to know the essential truth about leading candidates…before we vote in November. No one is above the law. If Trump is found to be not guilty, let that become widely acknowledged. If he is found by juries of his peers to be guilty of serious crimes, we need to be aware of that as well. Democracy flourishes if truth is widely distributed. May all people of good will urge that these court trials occur before the general election in November.

A Lesson from the Epiphany: Don’t Believe Leaders who Lie!

On January 6 many Christians celebrated the Epiphany by celebrating when the Wise Men from the East came to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Nevertheless, before they reached Bethlehem, they visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked him if he knew where to find the newborn Messiah. Herod was worried because a rival to his own kingly rule had appeared on the scene. After consulting with religious priests and teachers, Herod found out that Jesus was to be born in the town of Bethlehem. Herod gave the Wise Men this information, and then added, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-12).

Herod lied. He had no intention of worshipping Jesus. He was using the Wise Men’s naivete to find out Jesus’ exact location in order to kill him. But God spoke to the Wise Men and told them to return their countries by a different way. This they did. When Herod discovered their “disobedience”, he became furious and ordered the massacre of all the little boys in Bethlehem. God told Mary and Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt to find refuge.

There are many interesting lessons to learn from this story, but I would like to concentrate on one. King Herod lied. And he used a religious motivation to cover his lie. Sadly, Jesus, when he was a grown man, taught that kings and other rulers all too frequently lie. They lord it over their subjects yet claim to be doing good (Luke 22:24-25). What is the lesson to be learned? We should not be gullible. We should not be naïve. We should not believe lying leaders…even when they cloak their lies in religiosity.

There are some leaders who are women and men of integrity who generally tell the truth. Nevertheless, we should use great caution and discernment when we hear politicians. Many leaders in every major country frequently lie. Many Democrat leaders and many Republican leaders frequently lie. Lying is not the exclusive domain of our political enemies.

Former President Reagan borrowed the Russian proverb “trust, but verify” and popularized the phrase in the English language. This is what I urge us all to do. Don’t naively believe everything you hear, especially in an election year. To the degree that is possible, question, fact check, and verify the affirmations of all politicians.

I eagerly watched the Republican presidential debate last night. Three candidates had qualified for the debate (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump), but Trump chose not to participate. It was a lively debate with some substance and some smoke. DeSantis said, “Don’t trust Haley. She is lying.” Haley mentioned a dozen times the website DeSantisLies.com which points out the multiple lies of DeSantis and refutes them with evidence. Here are Republican leaders who tell us not to believe the words and promises of their rivals. They also accused Trump of lying, not just the “little” lies of the value of his properties, the unwanted fondling of women, or the immunity of presidents for all their actions while in office, etc., but the “Big Lie” of the 2020 election being stolen. Haley affirmed, “Biden won, Trump lost. It’s time to move forward.”

Leaders are not usually as good as they claim to be. Their lies must be unmasked. They point to the need for those who will double-check the facts and ask the tough questions. Let us be discerning as we seek the truth that can set us free.

Good News from Latin America: Christian Reflections on Suffering and Crisis

My readers may or may not know that some friends and I began publishing the Journal of Latin American Theology: Christian Reflections from the Latino South back in 2006. With two issues per year, the Journal has become one of the most important voices of Latin American Christian thinking in the English-speaking world. I have the privilege of being the General Editor of the Journal and I believe this issue is one of the very best. It deals with bringing God’s love to those who live in the midst of suffering, trauma and crisis. For those who are interested, here are the contents.

The Journal of Latin American Theology Volume 18:2

Disease and Healing: The Bible and Today’s World by Edesio Sánchez Cetina

Living from the Resurrection Narrative in the Midst of Speculation and Death by Fabio Salguero Fagoaga

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Supporting Women Displaced by Violence and Affected by COVID-19 by Mary Luz Reyes Bejarano

Pandemic, Trauma, and Lament: A Psycho-Theological and Pastoral Approach to Caregiving and Companioning by Daniel S. Schipani

Keys to Post-Traumatic Coping in the Life of Paul of Tarsus by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Justice vs. Righteousness: A Contextualized Analysis of “tsedeq” in the KJV (English) and RVR (Spanish) by Esteban M. Voth

Sustaining the Momentum of Theological Education by Dieumeme Noëlliste

Film Review – Waaki by Victor Masayesva by Samuel Lagunas

Book Review – Las huellas del reino de Dios: perspectivas teológicas en América Latina (1970–2000) by Martín Ocaña Flores

Book Review – The Lord Roars: Recovering the Prophetic Voice for Today by M. Daniel Carroll R.

Book Review – Los Profetas: The Prophetic Role of Hispanic Churches in America, ed. Daniel F. Flores

Book Review – Introducción a la teología del Nuevo Mundo by Oscar García-Johnson

Theopoetry – “De las cosas sencillas / Of the Simple Things” by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Available via Amazon and the ATLA theological data bank.