The appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court has cast a long shadow over the principles of constitutional fidelity and judicial restraint. Her ascent to the bench, celebrated by progressives, is an unmitigated testament to the far-left’s grip on the levers of power, where ideology most often trumps impartiality. Jackson’s noteworthy refusal to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearings was not merely a moment of evasiveness but a capitulation to the left-wing narrative that undermines the very foundation of objective truth and biological reality.

That historic moment speaks volumes about the ideological bent that she brings to the highest court in the land. It’s a vivid illustration of how far the scales have tipped towards a worldview where subjective self-identification is given precedence over objective fact. Such a stance, emblematic of the far-left’s influence, erodes the foundation of legal reasoning and whim of contemporary culture. When a Supreme Court Justice cannot or will not affirm basic objective truths, it signals a judiciary adrift in the moorings of radical subjectivism, poised to reshape laws and lives under the guise of progressivism.

Jackson’s reluctance to anchor her legal perspectives in the undeniable truths of nature and science reveals a willingness to bend the arc of justice towards the whims of contemporary social theories rather than the enduring pillars of law and order. This episode is a forewarning of the jurisprudential shifts awaiting us—a judiciary increasingly swayed by the currents of political ideology, where the anchor of objective truth is lifted, leaving our legal system to drift in the unpredictable waters of far-left activism.

Yet, even as liberal as Brown Jackson is, even she understood the unconstitutionality of Colorado’s attempt to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause—more so than our Evangelical figureheads. During the historic Supreme Court hearing, justices across the ideological spectrum, including Brown Jackson, expressed skepticism toward Colorado’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to restore Donald Trump to the 2024 primary ballots overruled states’ attempts to use the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause for disqualification. This ruling affirmed that such enforcement lies with Congress, not individual states, and ensured a unified approach to federal election qualifications. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for her extreme liberalism, concurred with this constitutional interpretation, highlighting the Court’s commitment to legal principles over political ideologies.

Despite all of this, two of the nation’s top Evangelical liberal figureheads, Russell Moore and David French, are even further left than these far-left progressive activists on the Supreme Court. Former Southern Baptist Convention ethics head said in a podcast prior to the SCOTUS ruling that Colorado’s decision to disenfranchise the majority of the state’s voters by removing Trump from the ballot “actually isn’t breaking of norms.”

“This is the court looking at a constitutional question that is contested and making a ruling,” Moore said. “And if what the court rules is, this isn’t what the 14th Amendment is addressing, talking about those who led an insurrection against the United States with the Confederate government who were not convicted either.”

“If they say this doesn’t fit with the 14th Amendment, then normal America is going to do what Al Gore did in 2000 and say the court has ruled we’re going forward,” he added. “That’s not norm-breaking. That’s what the norms are.”

And, of course, there’s David French, whose column in the NYT presents an argument that stretches to maintain his anti-Trump derangement syndrome while screeching “blasphemy!” at the justices over the Court’s ruling. His assertion that the Court has effectively nullified part of the Constitution by requiring Congressional action to enforce the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 demonstrates his commitment to his never-Trumpism over a rational legal discussion.

French writes, “Through inaction alone, Congress can effectively erase part of the 14th Amendment.”

“It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3,” he added. “The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. The Section then says, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.””

The fact that these two clowns have had so much influence in mainstream Evangelical circles over the years if baffling. The insufferable rantings of a man, David French—who argues that men should be allowed to dress like radical clown-like caricatures of women sex-workers while interacting with pre-school-aged children because “freedom of speech” and “blessing of liberty”—should not be taken seriously by anyone. Yet, this man is still featured on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s (SBTS) Equip pages as an expert on social justice issues and was promoted by SBTS professor, Denny Burk. And Russell Moore, despite leaving the SBC over its “rampant sex abuse” for Christianity Today, which apparently has no sex abuse issues (that’s sarcasm), is still highly influential among Southern Baptist pastors.

This isn’t meant to be a defense or endorsement of Donald Trump in any way, but it is meant to expose the hypocrisy of these lunatics that masquerade as Christian thought leaders while their derangement and disdain toward the former president is so powerful that they’re willing to cast aside all logic and reason in order to protect it, no matter how foolish they look.