There are few actions more antithetical to freedom than forcing a citizen to advance a cause he despises.
No one should believe that any judge is entirely free of ideological bias, but there is a profound difference between judges who approach a legal conflict with the question, “What does the Constitution mean?” and those who instead ask, “What does justice demand?”
These cases are different from Cochran’s, but they do contain a common thread — government officials demonstrated substantial intolerance in the name of “inclusion” and rather than seeking solutions that allowed each member of the community to exercise their liberty (to enjoy rights to cakes and conscience, for example), they took sides against Christians, using their power to send a clear message: Traditional Christianity is incompatible with the progressive state.
In short, an originalist court stands for a simple proposition: The Founders created an ingenious system of government. We should give it another try.
As we raise our sons, who is the better model? Is it the “wimp” who enlisted in the Navy at age 18, became one of the service’s youngest aviators, was shot down over the Pacific and rescued, went on to a lifetime of public service (including the presidency), led the nation in war, and managed the fall of the Soviet Union with calmness, ending a great-power conflict without triggering a cataclysm? Is it the beloved husband (of one wife for more than 70 years) and father — a man of real faith? Or is it the “tough guy” who ducked his war, paid off porn stars, gloried in his adultery, married three women, built a business empire in part through nepotism and “suspect” tax schemes, bankrupted casinos, and now adopts his aggressive posture mainly through public insults and angry tweets? This isn’t the masculinity that we should respect. And it’s hardly “manly” to defend behavior that is barely removed from the posturing and strutting of the schoolyard bully.
It’s a sign of our fallen world that all too many people misinterpret the presence of manners as a lack of manliness.
That is not a decision the Constitution empowers them to make. Chief Cochran’s case illustrates an emerging First Amendment truth. The personal cost of state bigotry is high, and justice demands that the government pay for its sins.