Is Christian nationalism a significant influence on some USSC decisions?

A Christian statement of opposition 

to Christian nationalism 

Me and some others have been arguing that CN (Christian nationalism) is a significant bad influence on American politics and society. In my opinion, some recent USSC decisions by the Roberts court evince the influence of CN ideology or dogma. However as far as I know, none of those decisions mentions Christianity or CN as an influencing factor or source of authority. Many people believe that unless USSC judges explicitly mention God, the CN movement or CN dogma as a source of influence or authority, it is irrational and unreasonable to ascribe any religious influence on MAGA judges on the USSC. That is an argument I strongly disagree with.

In the following analysis, keep in mind that for human beings it is very hard, probably impossible, for a judge to completely separate their moral values and beliefs from their perceptions of reality and reasoning, both conscious and unconscious. This is a complicating factor that cannot be avoided or denied. We just have to work with it.

What CN is

One source comments: There is no clean and tidy definition of Christian nationalism since it is not a formal religious denomination or sect with a stated doctrine of beliefs; nor is there any single person or council leading Christian nationalism that oversees followers.  

CN thus lacks a formal doctrine or centralized leadership. It generally represents a belief system that advocates for the fusion of Christian identity with American national identity. Religious scholars and sociologists describe it as the belief that the United States is fundamentally defined by Christianity and should maintain this character through government action and policy. CN's core beliefs are (1) the government should preserve America's Christian roots and identity, (2) laws and policies should explicitly reflect Christian values**, (3) the separation of church and state is not a binding principle, and (4) God has a divine plan for America as a Christian nation.

** I thought that our laws already reflected Christian values because our laws, law enforcement and courts are overwhelmingly dominated by Christians and that has always been the case. What CN means here is CN values, not other Christian values that CN dogma hates, e.g., secularism, pluralism and democracy.

  

Two sociologists describe CN like this: CN is "a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life." Christian nationalists see secular and pluralistic principles represent ahistorical aberrations in desperate need of correction. One of the sociologists commented that Trump's January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and coup attempt was "as Christian nationalist as it gets." Many of the participants said they were motivated by Christian ideology. 

Finally, some experts see the power of the CN movement as mostly a political wealth and power movement (~80%?) than a purely Christian fundamentalist movement (~20%?). From that point of view, Christianity is mostly a stalking horse that hides the CN's corruption and theocratic intent. In that vision, CN is primarily a political ideology that uses religious language and symbols to advance secular power objectives. CN's use of Christian identity to exclude others and consolidate political power is evidence that the movement subordinates religious teachings to political goals when politically expedient.

What is the evidence of CN influence on the USSC?

Because the US Constitution is a secular document that protects all religions, Republican USSC judges cannot explicitly mention God, CN ideology or any CN dogma as an authority or influence. In my firm opinion, it is nonsense to say there is no influence of CN ideology or dogma on the Republican judges because they said nothing about any religion or dogma. Those judges are not stupid. They have the power to never mention God, CN or Christian authority or dogma while still obliterating the Establishment Clause, dismantling church-state separation and gutting civil liberties that God disapproves of, including abortion, universal voting eights, minority protections, and same-sex marriage. None of those judges will ever mention God in their decisions, but that does not mean that God or his dogma has no influence. Common sense, cognitive biology and social behavior all say there is going to be at least some influence.

Therefore, one needs to look for indirect or circumstantial evidence of CN influence on the USSC.

Since John Roberts assumed the role of Chief Justice in 2005 evidence of CN’s influence has become apparent. CN dogma can be found in USSC decisions, the role of CN-aligned MAGA elites in judicial selection, the transparency of nomination processes, and the ideological impact on cases involving LGBTQ+ rights are all in alignment with CN dogma. The vetting process for judicial appointments are opaque and strategic. The public simply has no empirical basis to independently decide about what will guide decisions of a court nominee. We just has to trust a MAGA political process that has clearly proven itself to be untrustworthy. 

The Roberts Court has consistently reinterpreted the First Amendment’s religion clauses to favor CN interests. For example, the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2025) cases expanded free exercise and free speech protections for businesses opposing LGBTQ rights. Those decisions align with the CN-driven agenda to elevate CN morality over secular law. 

Religion cases under Roberts show a pronounced tilt, with 9 out of 10 rulings on Establishment and Free Exercise Clause disputes between 2005–2018 favoring Christian positions. That aligns with the CN objective of embedding “biblical principles” into law (and this). Evidence of that is seen in Alito’s concurrence in the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) anti-abortion ruling.[1] He cited 17th-century theologian Matthew Hale, a figure known for misogynistic views, to justify overturning abortion rights.

The Federalist Society, an authoritarian legal network, is the dominant force in judicial nominations. All six Republican-appointed justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas) are Federalist Society affiliates, and the Society has supplied over 85% of Trump-era appellate court nominees (and this). While the Society claims neutrality, its leadership, including co-chair Leonard Leo, openly promotes CN-aligned judges who prioritize “biblical worldview” principles.

Organizations like the American Family Association’s Center for Judicial Renewal (CJR) explicitly vet nominees for adherence to CN tenets. CJR’s “Ten Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge” prioritize candidates who affirm America’s Christian heritage and oppose LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and church-state separation. During Trump’s presidency, this vetting process operated with minimal transparency, as seen in the rushed confirmations of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, where key documents were withheld from public review (and this).

Dark money groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network (spending $27 million on Barrett’s confirmation) and The Wellspring Committee have funded campaigns to promote CN-aligned judges while obscuring donor identities (and this) 9 18. This lack of financial transparency enables CN interests to shape the judiciary without public accountability.

I firmly believe the evidence strongly supports a rational belief that Christian nationalism has exerted significant influence on the Roberts Court. But as usual, opinions differ widely. The big question here is, what is the empirical basis to trust that the six MAGA judges are principled and acting in service to the public interest, not in service to various forms of radical right authoritarianism, including CN politics and policy? 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

For the wonks in the land of TL/DR 

Footnote:

1. Regarding the 2022 Dobbs decision that eliminated a national right to abortion, I asked Pxy about expert legal opinion on that case.

Q: Does most expert legal opinion see the Dobbs USSC decision as anchored in evidence based reason and rationality, with no influence of religious belief or dogma?

A: Most expert legal opinion does not view the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization as primarily anchored in evidence-based reason and rationality, with many scholars identifying potential religious influences in the ruling. This conclusion emerges from analyzing a range of legal critiques focusing on the decision's reasoning, methodology, and underlying assumptions. Legal scholars have raised substantial concerns about the Court's reasoning in Dobbs, with most expert opinions finding significant flaws in its legal methodology and conclusions.

Neil Siegel of Duke University Law School offers a particularly pointed critique, stating flatly that "The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization cannot be taken seriously." He argues that the Court's rationale for rejecting abortion rights protection would logically apply to other substantive due process rights that the Court claims are not under threat. 4 This inconsistency in application suggests reasoning driven by outcome rather than constitutional principles.

Legal experts have specifically criticized how the Court applied stare decisis principles in Dobbs. The Harvard Law Review analysis notes that the Court's emphasis on "disrupted democratic deliberation" fundamentally "altered the scope and substance of the stare decisis calculus." 8 Rather than following established precedent for when to overturn prior decisions, the Court appeared to create new justifications for overruling long-standing precedent.

Joanne Rosen, a health law expert at Johns Hopkins University, describes the ruling as "stunning in its outcome and in the enormity of the implications entailed by the removal of a constitutionally protected right." She further observes that "perhaps for the first time, the Supreme Court departed from precedent not to recognize a right it previously neglected but rather to remove one it previously protected. It deconstitutionalized a long-standing right." 2

The Question of Religious Influence

Some legal scholars directly argue that religious views influenced the Court's decision. An article from the American Constitution Society contends that the Dobbs opinion "was authored by Justice Alito and four other members of the Court who are all conservative Christians. At least four are conservative Catholics." It further claims these justices "placed their personal, conservative Christian beliefs above those of others" and "believes a 'human person' comes into existence immediately upon conception." 3

This view argues that by failing to accommodate diverse religious perspectives on when life begins, the Court effectively privileged one religious viewpoint in its constitutional interpretation.

Other legal experts contest the characterization of Dobbs as religiously motivated. Bruce Ledewitz argues in Canopy Forum that "there is nothing inherently religious about qualms concerning abortion, nor is there anything specifically religious in the Dobbs majority opinion. Abortion is, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, a 'profound moral issue.' But, it is not a purely religious one."** 10

** As discussed above, one would fully expect there to be nothing specifically religious in Dobbs. And, lots of religious people argue that to be moral, a person must be religious.

Ledewitz points out that secular anti-abortion positions exist, citing figures like Nat Hentoff, a self-described "Jewish Atheist" columnist who opposed abortion. From this perspective, characterizing all opposition to abortion as religious "exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America." **

** Arguing that there are non-religious people who oppose abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether CN ideology has influenced some Roberts court decisions. CN theocratic aggression is what exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America, not opposition to abortion.

Conclusion
The preponderance of expert legal opinion views the Dobbs decision as problematically reasoned, with significant concerns about its constitutional methodology, application of precedent, and internal consistency. While disagreement exists about whether explicitly religious beliefs influenced the decision, many legal scholars identify moral positions aligned with particular religious traditions as having shaped the Court's approach.

While the Court’s legitimacy relies on perceptions of impartiality, the interplay between CN ideology and judicial outcomes reveals a systemic alignment with authoritarian and majoritarian religious values. For advocates of pluralism and secular governance, these trends pose existential challenges to democracy itself 16 18.

MAGA demagoguery about tariff pain: "Weak and stupid people!"

A wonderful essay by Amanda Marcotte that Salon published describes MAGA's propaganda strategy:

Fox News, desperate to defend Trump's tariffs, 

exploits MAGA's masculinity delusions

[Radical] right-wing social media has decided soaring inflation will somehow grant them all tradwives

With the stock market plunging and the threat of hyper-inflation bearing down, the propagandists at Fox News are in quite a pickle. Their job is to paint every dumb decision made by Donald Trump as the work of a secret genius [playing 6-dimensional chess] who is only pretending to be a half-literate idiot. But that's a tough sell, even to their delusional audiences, when Trump's tariffs are wiping out people's retirement accounts and threatening to raise the price of everything from groceries to cars. But Fox News knows there's one reliable way to get their audience to stop worrying about the real world and bury themselves even more deeply in fantasyland: make everything about MAGA's male insecurities.

Unable to deny the economic ruin Trump is inflicting on the nation, the Fox News spinsters have moved to reframing financial privation as a good thing, because it will supposedly restore Americans' lost masculinity. And, in the spirit of the "prosperity gospel" grifters that have cleaved themselves to Trump, Fox pundits are insisting that there will be a great reward for all this fiscal sacrifice: the restoration of male dominance over women. "Suffer now, but have faith in Trump, and he will bestow upon thee a tradwife" is the basic pitch.

"Could Trump's tariffs be the ultimate testosterone boost?" declared Greg Gutfeld on "The Five," immediately answering the question with a "yes." The propaganda team was boosted by a hamfisted chyron declaring that Trump's tariffs are "manly."

For those unclear on how paying way more for bananas and blue jeans will boost your testosterone, well, the tortured justification they offer isn't helpful. [Faux News blowhard] Jesse Watters tried to argue that tariffs will somehow magically result in millions of jobs doing physical labor, for which there is no evidence. (In reality, it will hurt existing manufacturing by raising prices on materials, and hurt agriculture by shutting down markets farmers depend on.) Watters went on to argue that these fictional jobs will restore manhood stolen from men who, like Watters, have desk jobs.

"When you sit behind a screen all day, it makes you a woman. Studies have shown this," said a still-male Watters as he sat behind the camera screen he stares at all day. This follows his lie from last week, when Watters promised tariffs would "turn the country into a place with thriving main streets and hometowns." This 1950s fantasy is the exact opposite of reality. The prosperity of the "Leave It To Beaver" era was kicked off because tariffs were dramatically lowered and taxes on the richest Americans reached historic highs — the opposite of Trump's economic plans.

Most right-wing propagandists aren't even trying to make argument-shaped pitches, but instead embracing the fascist method of portraying tariffs as a trial that will restore American manhood through pain. Sean Hannity scolded a caller who was angry about investment losses by telling him, "You don't have the stomach." MAGA influencer Benny Johnson mocked people worried about inflation by calling them "totally dependent and on our knees." He insisted losing money "builds quite a bit of character." Trump joined in by declaring Republican opponents of tariffs to be "Weak and Stupid people!"   

This is fascist rhetoric, in no small part because it's all emotion, no reason or logic. But it's feeding off a recent trend, fed by predatory social media influencers, that conflates masculinity with punishing self-discipline, the kind that rejects all pleasure and comfort as a feminizing — and thereby evil — force. This was most recently illustrated in a viral video by fitness influencer Ashton Hall, who unpersuasively insisted he rises before 4 AM for literal hours of working out and torturing himself with ice baths, while denouncing any form of self-indulgence. Eschewing sex and going to bed early is the key, he declares, to preventing "a weak mind, bad decisions or lack of productivity."

The "real men eschew comfort" mentality is quite convenient right now. Trump's actual reasons for imposing tariffs are a combination of off-the-charts stupidity and malice. But his fans cannot admit their hero-god is wreaking havoc on their pocketbooks for no good reason. Instead, this is being spun into a story not unlike Job's trials at the hands of God. But Trump-God isn't just testing their faith, but their manhood. And, to listen to Watters, if they hang in and prove their mettle, Trump will reward them with a 50s-era fantasy, complete with a submissive tradwife.

Well there we have it ladies 'n germs. If we don't like losing money, we're weak and stupid. 

Hm, I spend a lot of time with my computer screen. Have I turned into a woman?

Qs: Is it unfair or counterproductive to refer to Faux News instead of Fox, or does the reality of it all warrant the label? (It won't faze Faux viewers) Has Germaine morphed into a woman, human or otherwise?

Lizard woman - too much screen time 

used to be a lizard man

InfoWars and messaging wars: Do we deserve the politicians and government we get?

I think some of us do. The ones who voted for djt and MAGA Republicans, and the ones who didn't vote for Harris arguably deserve what they are getting. But what about the rest of us?

As usual, there are complexities.[1] For example, (i) gerrymandering gives political parties the power to choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives, (ii) the electoral college means that for president some votes have more power than others, (iii) primary elections tend to produce more radical candidates, which tend on the political right to be corrupt, anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian, and (iv) voter power depends on accurate information, which means that mass media has a lot of power to either empower or disempower voters. 

Things like lying, slandering (or insulting), distorting information, hiding information, irrational emotional manipulation and asserting flawed reasoning shifts power from deceived people to the deceivers. It takes from deceived and manipulated voters their power to use their vote to get who and what they want. That shields politicians from accountability. 

In theory, the federal government could ban gerrymandering because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. But that's not going to happen. We need to get rid of the electoral college, but that's also a pipe dream. Also impossible, are (i) imposing ethics laws with real teeth on the Supreme Court, (ii)  disincentivizing (taxing?) lies and crackpottery in mass and social media, (iii) relying on some sort of morality check to independently rank political candidates on the basis of pro-morality traits like honesty, reliance on sound reasoning, and sufficient relevant experience needed for competence in the job (inexperienced = unqualified or at least underqualified = a possible indicator of bad moral character for trying to get the job). 

Upping the messaging game

What a mess. There are lots of deceived and manipulated Americans. Many of them, probably a large majority, cannot be coaxed into reality by fact and sound reasoning alone. That seems to be more a fact than an opinion. Since major reform efforts are doomed for the foreseeable future, all that's left that is non-violent appears to be better messaging against the rising tide of MAGA demagoguery, authoritarianism and corruption.

What's a better messaging strategy that does not veer into dark free speech such as demagoguery, lies slanders, etc.? The only thing that is available seems to strong appeals to emotion packaged with just enough fact and sound reasoning to shift the message from one that is mostly an appeal to evidence and rationality to one that mostly appeals to emotional. 

Unless I already do mostly appeal to emotion, I will try to consciously shift my content from appeals to evidence and reason to mostly appeals to emotion. 

Yabut whadabout logic fallacy?

According to Wikipedia, appealing to emotion, or argumentum ad passiones, is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, or spite, and wishful thinking. .... It is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. .... The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion. .... Disagreeing with Seneca the Younger that emotion destroys reason, the 18th century Scottish philosopher George Campbell argued, instead, that emotions were allies of reason, and that they aid in the assimilation of knowledge. However, Campbell warned of the malleability of emotion and the consequent risk in terms of suggestibility:

[Emotions] are not supplanters of reason, or even rivals in her sway; they are her handmaids, by whose ministry she is enabled to usher truth into the heart, and procure it to favorable reception. As handmaids, they are liable to be seduced by sophistry in the garb of reason, and sometimes are made ignorantly to lend their aid in the introduction of falsehood.

Qs: 1) Under current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances, is appealing to emotion necessarily a logic fallacy, or can emotional appeals be mostly honest and mostly moral because they are strongly or completely aligned with facts, true truths and sound reasoning, i.e., not unreasonably distracting from rational consideration. 2) Are current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances relevant here to honesty and morality? 3) Do I already mostly appeal to emotion?

But what if that child really is starving?

Footnote:

1. Pxy:

Q: In view of the human condition, including human cognitive biology and social behavior, and current political circumstances, how true is the following assertion?: “we get the politicians (or government) we deserve." Take into account the relative persuasive power of honest speech (facts, truths and sound reasoning) compared to dishonest speech (demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpot conspiracies, etc.) under modern circumstances, e.g., social media, giant corporations with vast power, political radicalization, etc.

A: .... long analysis ....

Cognitive constraints 

Confirmation Bias and Political Reasoning
Almost every political actor, from ordinary citizens to syndicated pundits, regularly falls victim to confirmation bias—the tendency to seek information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. This cognitive shortcut allows people to maintain confidence in their political positions despite opposing views, creating echo chambers that reinforce polarization.

The Focusing Illusion in Political Attention
Daniel Kahneman's "focusing illusion" demonstrates that what we focus on becomes disproportionately important in our minds. As described by politicwise.org, "what you focus on becomes important to you. What is important to you becomes important to your politics." This explains why media coverage shapes political priorities, often elevating sensational issues over substantive policy matters.

Conclusion
The statement "we get the politicians we deserve" contains an important kernel of truth about collective responsibility in democratic systems. Citizens do shape their political environment through their choices and non-choices. However, this perspective must be balanced against recognition of the systemic constraints and cognitive limitations that influence political outcomes.

True political agency requires not just moral virtue from citizens but also information environments that enable meaningful deliberation. Without addressing the structural advantages that dishonest speech currently enjoys in our media ecosystem, we will continue to see a disconnect between the government we deserve and the government we actually get.

MAGA bits: Liars; Freaks; Thugs

DB reports that defense secy. Pete Hegseth deleted an important sentence from the English translation of a Panama Canal statement in Spanish: Hegseth’s Panama Canal Statement Leaves Out a Major Detail From Spanish Version -- A joint statement released Tuesday by the Pentagon following talks between U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino omitted appeared to omit a significant detail. Mulino and Hegseth released a joint statement following their talks, the Spanish version of which included the line: “Secretary Hegseth recognized the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.” That detail was nowhere to be seen in the English-language version released by the Pentagon, the Associated Press first reported.

From here on out, we can expect nothing but obliteration (denial, distortion, downplay, blame shift, etc.) of all inconvenient facts, true truths and sound reasoning from not only the DoD, but the entire MAGA federal government. 

And, MAGA does not recognize the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas. That’s interesting. I bet Mulino is wondering . . . . . is it Defcon 1 time for the Panamanian military? Who knows. MAGA is a very nasty black box.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

MJ reports that at least one AI Poobah and MAGA extremist always intended AI to be used for facial recognition to target and purge liberals and immigrants: The Shocking Far-Right Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI --- Thousands of newly obtained documents show that Clearview AI’s founders always intended to target immigrants and the political left. Now their digital dragnet is in the hands of the Trump administration. --- An immigrant to the United States himself, Hoan Ton-That grew up in Melbourne and Canberra and claimed to be descended from Vietnamese royalty. At 19, he dropped out of college and, in 2007, moved to San Francisco to pursue a tech career. He later fell in with Silicon Valley neoreactionaries who embraced a far-right, technocratic vision of society. Now Ton-That and his partners wanted to use facial recognition to keep people out of the country. Certain people. Their technology would put that ideology into action. .... A diehard Donald Trump supporter, Ton-That envisioned using facial recognition to compare images of migrants crossing the border to mugshots to see if the arrivals had been previously arrested in the United States.

Remember my 4/1/25 post about NRx, neoreactionary authoritarianism, for the young 'uns? No? Here's the link. Good old Ton-That is one of those NRx freaks. Interestingly he is, or claims to be, a Vietnamese immigrant to Australia who immigrated to the US to help set up a system to spot immigrants and get them booted out of the country. As Spock would say, fascinating. Let's boot out Ton-That!

Hey! I've been there and ton that! Nyuk, nyuk!

Peanut 1: This is what Republicans voted for. Your Republican neighbor, your Republican pastor, your Republican uncle, etc...they're all either dumbfucks or fascists, there is nothing in between.

Peanut 2: Hey give them some credit. Some of them are dumbfucks and fascists that fall perfectly between.

Peanut 3: Evil people have an inherent competitive advantage because ignoring laws, rules, and ethics multiplies your opportunities to make more money by a ton-that. Especially when government regulation of such behavior gets as soft as the US has gotten over the past 50 years (thanks boomers). Now, predictably evil people have more wealth than entire countries and are using their wealth to buy governments and further tip everything in favor of further increasing their power and wealth.

I sense some disgruntlement in the peanut gallery.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

TNR reports about MAGA thugs gleefully deporting bona fide US citizens for committing crimes: Press Secretary Says Trump Wasn’t Joking About Deporting U.S. Citizens --- Donald Trump had suggested sending American citizens to prison in El Salvador --- During a press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to explain Trump’s disturbingly enthusiastic response to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s wildly illegal proposition for the U.S. government to relocate individuals incarcerated in the federal prison system, including American citizens, to the Central American country. .... “These would be heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly. These are violent, repeat offenders in American streets,” Leavitt said.

Well, OK, only deport heinous, violent, repeat offender criminals! Hm, I wonder if this blog constitutes a place of heinous, violent, repeat offender crime in MAGA’s opinion. Nah, probably not. I hope. 

What could give one pause, is djt’s disturbingly enthusiastic response to boxing ’em up and shipping ’em out. That’s a bit creepy coming from a hyper-vindictive, thin-skinned, dictator-wannabe who is the US president.