Donald Trump sentenced after losing Supreme Court decision

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced today by Judge Juan Merchan to “unconditional discharge” after being found guilty in May of thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records. Mr. Trump appeared by video alongside his attorney. While the sentence makes Mr. Trump a convicted felon, he will be released without fine, imprisonment, or probation supervision and thus will face no penalty other than this legal designation.

Mr. Trump had filed an emergency request with the US Supreme Court to block the sentencing, arguing that it would damage “the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.” The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted against his request, while four justices appointed by Republicans said they would have granted it.

Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the Democratic appointees, which is not surprising given his history as a “swing vote” whose decisions are less predictable. What surprised many was that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose conservative views were castigated at her nomination as a threat to civil rights in American society, also voted to deny Mr. Trump’s request. Her vote tipped the scales against him.

My purpose is not to discuss the legal merits of this case or the larger “lawfare” issues it raises. Nor is it to comment on partisan politics with regard to Supreme Court appointments and rulings.

Rather, it is to note that, whether we agree or disagree with the Court and this decision, their ruling is final. Even the president of the United States (or president-elect in this case), often called “the leader of the free world,” has no personal authority to countermand the courts.

Imagine this story being played out in Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, or a host of other autocratic dictatorships. You can’t because it would never happen there. Our constitutional system of checks and balances is foundational to our democratic republic. And this story highlights a foundational reason why.

“Made only for a moral and religious people”

Two schools of thought with regard to democracy are especially relevant to this discussion.

One was championed by Swiss-born political theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), who believed that humans are inherently good, unselfish, and non-violent. In this view, democracy is valuable because people deserve to determine their own destiny in freedom and can be trusted to do the right thing when elected and empowered.

By contrast, the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1558–1679) argued that humans innately seek the satisfaction of their own mechanistic and selfish desires. He famously asserted that without government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In his view, humans need to be governed lest we harm or even kill each other to further our selfish ambitions.

Which is more correct?

Rousseau’s ideas inspired the leaders of the French Revolution, who sought to create a purely secular state and divest society of all religious aspects. The “Reign of Terror” that resulted led to the execution of some seventeen thousand people, while as many as ten thousand more died in prison or without trial. The revolution ended with Napoleon Bonaparte’s military coup in 1799.

Hobbes’s ideas inspired the leaders of the American Revolution, who sought to create a “Social Contract” by which no person is granted unaccountable power. The checks and balances between the executive, judicial, and legislative were created for this purpose. While the Founders were also heavily influenced by John Locke’s belief that a government’s legitimacy comes from the consent of the people they governed, they rejected Rousseau’s optimistic trust in unbridled human nature.

The Founders’ Hobbesian understanding of humanity helps explain their emphatic insistence that the democracy they created requires religious foundations to govern human nature. Thus John Adams could declare that our constitution is “made only for a moral and religious people” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And George Washington could state in his 1796 “Farewell Address,” “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

“I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost”

Which view is more biblical?

C. S. Lewis stated that he was a proponent of democracy “because I believe in the Fall of Man.”

He added:

I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government.

The danger of defending democracy on these grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation.

He then explained: “The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows.”

I emphatically agree with Lewis. All humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and loved unconditionally by him (John 3:16), which would make one think that Rousseau’s view of human nature is to be preferred.

However, all humans are also fallen and sinful by nature (Romans 3:23) to such a degree that even the Apostle Paul, author of nearly half of the New Testament, had to admit, “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19).

As a result, a society with no government (Rousseau’s preference) would liberate us to steal the liberties of others in our selfish desire to be our own god (Genesis 3:5). A society with autocratic government would liberate the dictator to steal the liberties of others in his selfish desire to be his own god.

A society with elected officials who are accountable to those who elect them and to the laws and courts created through self-government is therefore the best logical and practical solution. This fact goes a long way toward explaining why America has flourished as we have over our history. And toward explaining why we have failed as we have with regard to slavery, women’s rights, and other coercive and discriminatory wrongs in our history.

Cutting off the rope that sustains us

The freedoms we enjoy as a result of our Founders’ brilliance must never be taken for granted. As Ronald Reagan declared in his 1967 inaugural address as governor of California, “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Nor should the importance of the religious and moral foundations our Founders insisted upon be slighted. This, I fear, is what is happening apace in our day.

We are like climbers cutting off the rope that sustains us. Because human nature is so Hobbesian, we are always tempted to choose what we want at the expense of what is best. The submission and discipline inherent in making Christ our king clashes with our self-reliant self-determination to be our own king.

And the edifice of freedom erected on the morality empowered by God and his word is threatened.

I close with one more philosopher who ideas have been as formative as those of Rousseau and Hobbes, if not more so. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) articulated a “Categorical Imperative” by which we should only act in a way that we would want everyone else to act in the same situation. Essentially, we should ask before making a decision, “What if everyone did that?”

To this end, as a way of helping our nation come closer to the moral character that results from making Christ our king, let’s remember the biblical imperative to be “filled” or controlled by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). And let’s ask:

What if everyone in America was as submitted to the Holy Spirit as you are now?

Would that be a good thing for us?

For you?