The legitimacy of a nation’s laws or a court’s decisions is measured by two things: the degree to which both stand for the inherent rights of all people, and how consistent both are to what Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers called “the immutable laws of nature” and “of nature’s God.”

So for the record, as a man, I wouldn’t want a Supreme Court nominee to promise to focus on “male rights.” I hope that helps explain the headline of my piece.

If leftists would invest less bandwidth in outrage and shouting, and a little more in listening and thinking, they might see that special and “manufactured” rights for some diminish the actual rights of all. Selective justice promotes injustice; selective tolerance is intolerance.

Conservatives don’t want those on the Left to have fewer of the inalienable rights our Founders envisioned. But we would humbly remind the triggered masses of 2018 that imagining more rights in the whim of a cultural moment is a Pandora’s box that no culture should open either.

Supreme Court justices are charged with upholding the Constitution — and thereby defending the rights of all people. If Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed (and despite the street fight and obstructionist thuggery promised by the Left, it is certain he will be), he will go to the SCOTUS bench not to infer for any groups special rights, but to defend all people’s natural rights.

Pro-abortion advocates have been shouting about “women’s rights” and “reproductive rights,” of course. Pro-gay, pro-transgender, pro-trans-humanism and the “let’s-redefine-what-it-means-to-be-human” lobbies all want the judiciary to recognize the most recent grocery list of “rights” (read “demands”) that their PACs have scripted out.

Related: Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s Pick for SCOTUS: Everything You Must Know

But what is desperately needed are leaders who govern in accord with natural law — what Jefferson called “self-evident truth” and others called “virtue,” “absolute morality” or “laws of nature and nature’s God.” Democrat spokespersons like Bernie Sanders have promised that “the fight is on,” but even the most liberal of the already disturbingly liberal Democrats should hope that the SCOTUS judges don’t assume any splinter group’s special rights.

We should all hope Kavanaugh goes to 1 First Street in Washington, D.C., committed to defending the God-given rights of all people — plus nothing, minus nothing.

Morals, court decisions and a nation’s destiny should be guided by dispassionate reason and ethical convictions. The world becomes unjust, and the future promises only increased danger when truth can be ameliorated by whomever has the loudest megaphone for their outrage du jour.

As President Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the next justice who will sit on our nation’s highest court, I was encouraged to hear him say Kavanaugh would interpret the Constitution “as written.”

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Let’s hope Kavanaugh (and the rest of the Supreme Court) will agree with the words spoken by President John F. Kennedy at his 1961 inaugurations: “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

As President Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the next justice who will sit on our nation’s highest court, I was certainly encouraged to hear him say Kavanaugh would interpret the Constitution “as written.” In a perspective that Antonin Scalia would have appreciated, Kavanaugh has stated, “Judges should strive to find the best reading of the statute, based on the words, context, and appropriate semantic canons of construction.” Translation: Take the meaning of the words at face value as written, and do not impose meaning on top of them.

Related: Democrats Will Unleash ‘A Lot of Scare Tactics’ Against Kavanaugh

Biblical scholars often speak of exegesis — meaning, “to draw out the meaning of the text” based on the words of the passage. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is to insert meaning into the text. In the pulpit and among our nation’s judiciary, we do not need eisegetes (read “activists” and “revisionists”) on our benches.

For the preservation of our Constitution, we need SCOTUS judges who believe in the existence of objective truth, recognize universal moral law — and who understand that our Founders framed the government with these core beliefs in view.

Related:  Brett Kavanaugh, Devoted Family Man, Is Trump’s New SCOTUS Nominee

In fact, our Constitution only makes sense in a context in which natural law is acknowledged. Unless there is a commitment to these realities, our culture will descend further into social and legal chaos. Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that Brett Kavanaugh is such a man.

Dr. Alex McFarland is a religion and culture expert, director of Christian Worldview and Apologetics at North Greenville University, a national talk-show host, speaker and author of 18 books and the host of the Truth for a New Generation conference. For more information, visit

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.