Morality and the Supreme Court

Last month’s blog post addressed morally responsible vs. socially responsible investing, and our moral compass here at the Stewardship Foundation. Now, yesterday’s nomination of a conservative Catholic Justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh again puts morality in the spotlight. Coincidence maybe, but the liberal media is going nuts. Let’s take a look at a bit of history.

US Supreme CourtPresidents usually nominate individuals who share, on the most part, their own ideological views. However, when then-President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the courts expecting him to be a conservative judge, his decisions ultimately proved to be the most liberal in the country’s history. When President George H. W. Bush appointed David Souter in 1990, history shows that his decisions most often favored the liberal side. We can’t help but wonder whether the Senate confirmation hearings will recall these two appointments or discount them completely!

In 1953, Samuel Enoch Stumpf wrote an elegant paper on whether the United States Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of moral and ethical value judgment. He wrote, “Such a question may reveal a misunderstanding of the nature of law as well as the nature of the judicial process. Moreover, to elect the Court to roam in the field of morals may indicate a failure to take into account the limitations placed upon the Court by both our federal system and the division of powers. Indeed, a reading of the Supreme Court decisions for the past twenty years reveals a manful resistance on the part of the judges to intrude their moral and ethical judgement into their decisions…” Read the paper here »

Many would say that the Supreme Court is not supposed to settle cases based on morality but in fact Judges are defined as moral reasoners. The late Justice Scalia himself said “the courts cannot scientifically demonstrate right answers,” and that it’s the community’s job to determine what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts.

What we find alarming is the rapid pace of society insisting that the highest court in the land make decisions in favor of declining moral values. Every year, Gallup’s question about the current state of moral values in the U.S. aligns with the view that they are getting worse. It will be a fierce debate in the confirmation hearings as the distinguished Mr. Kavanaugh faces a Congress hell-bent on supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, assisted suicide, and every other fetish in the name of diversity, tolerance, and compassion. God help us.

Searching For A Moral Compass

As portfolio managers, we are tasked to look out for our customers—to offer higher returns, lower risk, and efficient tax avoidance while we grow their accounts and provide income in retirement. As stewards of our customer’s portfolios, we strive to the do the right thing in terms of selecting investment products that build up society, do good, and follow Christian principles.

There is often confusion about the difference between Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Morally Responsible Investing (MRI). We’ll try to make it simple.

Initially, SRI was used to describe investing in companies that did not profit from “bad” things like tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and firearms. The perception was that these companies promoted sickness, mental and physical abuse, failed relationships, bad habits, and even death. The term focused on which companies one would avoid, not what to invest in, but that has changed. Now SRI seeks out companies that do good—such as alternative energy/clean technologies, community organizations that provide needed services to the poor and disadvantaged, and others that improve the quality of life and reduce reliance on welfare. The focus is on society, not necessarily moral or ethical good as defined by Christian conscience.

moral compassMRI is a subset of SRI but is different because it screens out companies engaged in abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and pornography. It’s pro-life and pro-family. It’s a pillar of the Stewardship Foundation. MRI appeals to investors who want to buy into specific funds that match their moral compass.

As SRI investing became more popular (over $40 trillion in 2016), the term Impact Investing found its way onto the investment stage. The term refers to investing in companies that do the right thing. It actively targets firms, funds, or projects that provide a measurable benefit to society as a whole. Not limited to stocks, mutual funds, or ETFs, it includes private equity, venture capital, and debt investment programs. Investors in this arena are actively participating by putting their money where their mouth is.

Remember that the Stewardship Foundation’s endgame is financial growth for our clients. Whether you are saving for retirement or using your wealth to actively make the world a better place, the road we help you choose is paved with a Christian moral compass.

What Happened to Ireland?

oh irelandIreland has voted to sweep aside generations of faithfulness to God’s 7th Commandment, do not kill. This month, citizens of the island Republic voted decisively to repeal the ban on abortions, adding to their slide toward liberalism.

Left wing populism is on the rise all over Europe. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said, “This has been a great exercise in democracy, and the people have spoken and the people have said: We want a modern Constitution for a modern country, and that we trust women and that we respect them to make the right decisions and the right choices about their own health care.”

When God blessed Noah and his sons, He said to them “Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth.” He did not say, “fill the earth until such a time that you decide there are enough children in the world, or when your women are able to make their own decisions and choices.” No, God made a covenant with them and sealed it with a rainbow—between Him and every mortal being on earth.

What is sad is that only 64% of Irish citizens cared enough to turn out to vote leaving nearly two-thirds of voters willing to repeal their constitution’s Eighth Amendment—largely because of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year old dentist who died from sepsis during a protracted miscarriage after being denied an abortion at a Galway hospital in 2012. Pro-choice advocates claimed that her life could have been spared had Halappanavar received the abortion she wanted.

Ireland’s first openly gay Prime Minister called it a “once in a generation vote.” He hopes to capitalize on the momentum of the vote to extend the time allowed to receive an abortion from the first 12 weeks of pregnancy to later terms. Ireland voted for same-sex “marriage” in 2015.

Reporters boasted that the vote is a “rejection of an Ireland that treated women as second-class citizens” adding that “this is about women’s equality.” If we are all created equal under God, then the yet-unborn child in his or her mother’s womb had equal rights, including the right to life.

The argument pits child against mother. How tragic that the unborn is the enemy of the mother. How more tragic is a world that believes passing laws disrespectful of human life is somehow more advanced, more fair, more compassionate.

The only moral direction possible is to leave life and death in the hands of a loving God, and to consider that the only way we can actually protect a woman’s rights is by enforcing laws that also protect an unborn child’s right to life.