--------------------------------------------------------------------
From Dutch Sheets:
Last Thursday (January 9, 2025), the Court ruled 5-4 that the sentencing of Trump in New York for 34 counts of falsifying business records could go forward. Justices Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson ruled to allow it; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh said no. Thus, the sentencing occurred and, as presiding Judge Merchan had stated in advance, he issued an “unconditional discharge,” meaning there would be no fines or jail time.
Most conservatives believe that the Dems, including Judge Merchan, have been using the multiple cases against Trump as lawfare, attempting to keep him from winning the recent presidential election. After he won, in spite of their efforts, those on the Right believe Merchan’s actions continued in order to humiliate and demean Trump. Indeed, they now brand him as a felon. Most experts I have heard address Merchan’s case believe it was so unlawful, and his rulings from the bench were so egregious, that Trump’s conviction will unquestionably be overturned on appeal.
My purpose in mentioning this Supreme Court decision, however, is not to discuss the case; I’m certainly not qualified to do that. It is rather to comment on and pray for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has received tremendous criticism from those on the Right for her vote in this case. Chief Justice Roberts, while also touted as a conservative, has sided with the Left so often that it is not nearly as surprising when he does so. Barrett, on the other hand, was believed to be a staunch conservative when placed on the Court, and was loved by the Right. Since then, however, she has sided and voted with the Left more than once, to the bitter disappointment of many conservatives. This decision involving Trump is a case in point, and the criticism has been vicious. I feel a word of caution is in order.
Why Did She Vote As She Did?
I am certainly not a legal scholar, but in speaking with trusted conservative attorneys regarding Barrett’s decision, as well as listening to the insights of several more (including law professors), it appears that Justice Barrett took the typical course most Justices take on a criminal appeal such as this. In short, the Justices do NOT like to interrupt the normal legal process, preferring instead that cases run their normal course before getting to them. Understandably, I’m told, they make a great effort to honor “the process,” avoiding appearances - whenever possible - of dishonoring lower courts and judges.
Accordingly, the 5-Justice majority stated: “Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” They added shortly thereafter that “the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial,”(1) in light of the sentence Merchan was intending to impose. Again, in my layman’s terms, they were saying: Trump won’t be hurt by allowing this case to run its course all the way through the normal appeals process.
Those with whom I spoke and to whom I listened were NOT defending the majority decision, which of course included Amy Coney Barrett; they were simply explaining what they felt occurred. To quote one of them, who shall remain unnamed, “She took the ordinary course on a criminal appeal; it would be highly unusual in an ordinary case for the court to intervene at this stage. However,” he pointed out, “this is not an ordinary case. She treated the extraordinary as ordinary, and that is inappropriate. By attempting to treat this case no differently than others she missed the bigger point, which is that this case is very different from others. It involved a historic and unprecedented corruption of the criminal justice system to unjustly charge a former President of the United States – the most powerful nation in the world – attempt to imprison him, and interfere with his possible reelection. This case is truly extraordinary, and extraordinary cases call for extraordinary measures. Barrett seems to miss the forest for the trees. She is so focused on not treating Trump differently that she ignores the fact that he has already been treated differently.”
Another attorney made the point that it was inappropriate NOT to interrupt “the process,” because this process was flawed from the beginning. And whereas the highest court in America was given the opportunity to correct this by stopping the flawed process, it was ludicrous to not do so. In other words, by wrongly elevating the process of justice in this case, they allowed injustice to continue. As contradictory as it sounds, due process is not the goal; due process is to get us to the goal; it’s the means, not the end. And when the means is flawed, as it was in this case from the start, and the opportunity comes to correct that, it becomes irresponsible not to do so.
Again, I’m no legal expert, but that seemed logical to me.
Jesus showed us that it is indeed possible to so elevate a process, or even a law, that we make it sacrosanct. And in doing so, we sometimes sacrifice logic, wisdom, and even common sense. Ironically, the virtue of striving to meticulously follow a law can at times produce wrong decisions and outcomes. The Pharisees had a legal right under the law - some would argue a responsibility - to stone the adulterous woman brought to Jesus (John 8:1-11). According to Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22, it seemed that both parties to adultery were always to be stoned. Not so, Jesus’ words and actions - His verdict - demonstrated. Think about it, the actual Giver of the law didn’t adhere to the law, the “process,” in this case. Instead, He said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
When refusing to condemn the woman, Jesus wasn’t condemning the law, either. He simply understood that the law being referenced, in and of itself, wasn’t the goal; it wasn’t the end of the matter. The purpose of the law was to keep evil practices from becoming acceptable in Israel (see Deuteronomy 22:22). Doing so, however, didn’t take precedence over repentance and God’s redeeming love.
Being a wise judge, especially at the Supreme Court level, involves properly understanding and interpreting the Constitution, then applying it with wisdom and reason in cases and laws. Doing this, while simultaneously avoiding the slippery slope of prioritizing/implementing one’s own ideals, is a daunting assignment, and is also a very weighty bestowed trust. That is why there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court. Their interpretations and reasonings vary, are at times inadequate, can be shaped by past paradigms and, sadly, can even be influenced by their personal preferences (i.e. legislating from the Bench). Therefore, due to the gravity of their role, the challenge of their responsibility, and their humanness, we rely on their collective reasoning.
Does Amy Coney Barrett now lean to the Left? I don’t think so. In my humble opinion she at times, demonstrating her humanness, falls prey to not adding wisdom to her virtue and knowledge, thereby making the “process” and/or “letter of the law” the ultimate goal.
What should be our position and response as intercessors?
Firstly, don’t speak evil of Justice Barrett (or any of the Justices), leveling accusations and word curses. Instead, pray for her.
Ask God to give her greater wisdom to operate alongside her tremendous intellect, knowledge, and good intentions…to reveal to her when being micro correct will result in being macro incorrect.
Ask God to give her a heart that submits fully to Him, and is immune to criticism.
Pray for the safety of her and her family.
Much of the news lately regarding our national government has revolved around the Presidency and Congress. Understandably so. However, we must not forget to pray for the Supreme Court. They wield incredible power, which in America’s history has been used for both good and evil. With the great influence they hold in our nation, we must pray that they will continue to shift toward America’s founding principles and righteousness.
Last Thursday (January 9, 2025), the Court ruled 5-4 that the sentencing of Trump in New York for 34 counts of falsifying business records could go forward. Justices Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson ruled to allow it; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh said no. Thus, the sentencing occurred and, as presiding Judge Merchan had stated in advance, he issued an “unconditional discharge,” meaning there would be no fines or jail time.
Most conservatives believe that the Dems, including Judge Merchan, have been using the multiple cases against Trump as lawfare, attempting to keep him from winning the recent presidential election. After he won, in spite of their efforts, those on the Right believe Merchan’s actions continued in order to humiliate and demean Trump. Indeed, they now brand him as a felon. Most experts I have heard address Merchan’s case believe it was so unlawful, and his rulings from the bench were so egregious, that Trump’s conviction will unquestionably be overturned on appeal.
My purpose in mentioning this Supreme Court decision, however, is not to discuss the case; I’m certainly not qualified to do that. It is rather to comment on and pray for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has received tremendous criticism from those on the Right for her vote in this case. Chief Justice Roberts, while also touted as a conservative, has sided with the Left so often that it is not nearly as surprising when he does so. Barrett, on the other hand, was believed to be a staunch conservative when placed on the Court, and was loved by the Right. Since then, however, she has sided and voted with the Left more than once, to the bitter disappointment of many conservatives. This decision involving Trump is a case in point, and the criticism has been vicious. I feel a word of caution is in order.
Why Did She Vote As She Did?
I am certainly not a legal scholar, but in speaking with trusted conservative attorneys regarding Barrett’s decision, as well as listening to the insights of several more (including law professors), it appears that Justice Barrett took the typical course most Justices take on a criminal appeal such as this. In short, the Justices do NOT like to interrupt the normal legal process, preferring instead that cases run their normal course before getting to them. Understandably, I’m told, they make a great effort to honor “the process,” avoiding appearances - whenever possible - of dishonoring lower courts and judges.
Accordingly, the 5-Justice majority stated: “Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” They added shortly thereafter that “the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial,”(1) in light of the sentence Merchan was intending to impose. Again, in my layman’s terms, they were saying: Trump won’t be hurt by allowing this case to run its course all the way through the normal appeals process.
Those with whom I spoke and to whom I listened were NOT defending the majority decision, which of course included Amy Coney Barrett; they were simply explaining what they felt occurred. To quote one of them, who shall remain unnamed, “She took the ordinary course on a criminal appeal; it would be highly unusual in an ordinary case for the court to intervene at this stage. However,” he pointed out, “this is not an ordinary case. She treated the extraordinary as ordinary, and that is inappropriate. By attempting to treat this case no differently than others she missed the bigger point, which is that this case is very different from others. It involved a historic and unprecedented corruption of the criminal justice system to unjustly charge a former President of the United States – the most powerful nation in the world – attempt to imprison him, and interfere with his possible reelection. This case is truly extraordinary, and extraordinary cases call for extraordinary measures. Barrett seems to miss the forest for the trees. She is so focused on not treating Trump differently that she ignores the fact that he has already been treated differently.”
Another attorney made the point that it was inappropriate NOT to interrupt “the process,” because this process was flawed from the beginning. And whereas the highest court in America was given the opportunity to correct this by stopping the flawed process, it was ludicrous to not do so. In other words, by wrongly elevating the process of justice in this case, they allowed injustice to continue. As contradictory as it sounds, due process is not the goal; due process is to get us to the goal; it’s the means, not the end. And when the means is flawed, as it was in this case from the start, and the opportunity comes to correct that, it becomes irresponsible not to do so.
Again, I’m no legal expert, but that seemed logical to me.
Jesus showed us that it is indeed possible to so elevate a process, or even a law, that we make it sacrosanct. And in doing so, we sometimes sacrifice logic, wisdom, and even common sense. Ironically, the virtue of striving to meticulously follow a law can at times produce wrong decisions and outcomes. The Pharisees had a legal right under the law - some would argue a responsibility - to stone the adulterous woman brought to Jesus (John 8:1-11). According to Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22, it seemed that both parties to adultery were always to be stoned. Not so, Jesus’ words and actions - His verdict - demonstrated. Think about it, the actual Giver of the law didn’t adhere to the law, the “process,” in this case. Instead, He said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
When refusing to condemn the woman, Jesus wasn’t condemning the law, either. He simply understood that the law being referenced, in and of itself, wasn’t the goal; it wasn’t the end of the matter. The purpose of the law was to keep evil practices from becoming acceptable in Israel (see Deuteronomy 22:22). Doing so, however, didn’t take precedence over repentance and God’s redeeming love.
Being a wise judge, especially at the Supreme Court level, involves properly understanding and interpreting the Constitution, then applying it with wisdom and reason in cases and laws. Doing this, while simultaneously avoiding the slippery slope of prioritizing/implementing one’s own ideals, is a daunting assignment, and is also a very weighty bestowed trust. That is why there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court. Their interpretations and reasonings vary, are at times inadequate, can be shaped by past paradigms and, sadly, can even be influenced by their personal preferences (i.e. legislating from the Bench). Therefore, due to the gravity of their role, the challenge of their responsibility, and their humanness, we rely on their collective reasoning.
Does Amy Coney Barrett now lean to the Left? I don’t think so. In my humble opinion she at times, demonstrating her humanness, falls prey to not adding wisdom to her virtue and knowledge, thereby making the “process” and/or “letter of the law” the ultimate goal.
What should be our position and response as intercessors?
Firstly, don’t speak evil of Justice Barrett (or any of the Justices), leveling accusations and word curses. Instead, pray for her.
Ask God to give her greater wisdom to operate alongside her tremendous intellect, knowledge, and good intentions…to reveal to her when being micro correct will result in being macro incorrect.
Ask God to give her a heart that submits fully to Him, and is immune to criticism.
Pray for the safety of her and her family.
Pray with me:
Father, You made very clear to us that we are to prioritize praying for our government leaders. We have no right to criticize them if we do not pray for them. Thank You for the changes that are occurring, for the godly individuals that are now functioning in our government. We ask You to give us more leaders who desire to follow Your will and ways.
You said in Isaiah 1:26: “I will bring back legislators who have integrity, people like your founding fathers—principled decision-makers. Then your city will be called honorable and just, a model of ethics, trustworthy, and strong” (The Voice Translation).
We pray for Justice Barrett, and all of our Supreme Court Justices. Give them wisdom and understanding as they apply knowledge. Their responsibilities are so great, the challenges so huge. Cause them to humble themselves and acknowledge their need for Your help in making sound decisions. Those who need to make changes and adjustments to their beliefs, please cause this to occur. Those who have hardened their hearts in ways that prohibit this, please remove them and give us Justices who fear Your name and honor Your ways. We ask all these things in Yeshua’s name. Amen.
Our decree:
We decree that God will give us leaders who are principled decision-makers, filled with integrity, and whose hearts honor Him.
1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A666/336918/20250109123308181_Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Father, You made very clear to us that we are to prioritize praying for our government leaders. We have no right to criticize them if we do not pray for them. Thank You for the changes that are occurring, for the godly individuals that are now functioning in our government. We ask You to give us more leaders who desire to follow Your will and ways.
You said in Isaiah 1:26: “I will bring back legislators who have integrity, people like your founding fathers—principled decision-makers. Then your city will be called honorable and just, a model of ethics, trustworthy, and strong” (The Voice Translation).
We pray for Justice Barrett, and all of our Supreme Court Justices. Give them wisdom and understanding as they apply knowledge. Their responsibilities are so great, the challenges so huge. Cause them to humble themselves and acknowledge their need for Your help in making sound decisions. Those who need to make changes and adjustments to their beliefs, please cause this to occur. Those who have hardened their hearts in ways that prohibit this, please remove them and give us Justices who fear Your name and honor Your ways. We ask all these things in Yeshua’s name. Amen.
Our decree:
We decree that God will give us leaders who are principled decision-makers, filled with integrity, and whose hearts honor Him.
1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A666/336918/20250109123308181_Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Copyright © 2025 Dutch Sheets Ministries, All rights reserved.
