THIS OP-ED IS ARTICLE 400 PUBLISHED BY HE

IN THE WAKE OF SCOTUS RULING AGAINST A PRESIDENT'S CERTAIN TARIFF POWERS:

When Law Forgets Equity - Why America’s Courts Must Recover the Founders’ Moral Compass, AND Study the Classics.

At his trial, Socrates insisted several times that virtue was the only thing that mattered in one's life.

SCHOLAR DOUG BERNACCHI'S OPINION ON TODAY'S LESS-LEARNED COURTS

From Aristotle to Jefferson, those "heady" thought leaders (after whom we all need to model ourselves) pursued virtue and service. The tradition behind American justice, this op-ed author, Doug Bernacchi, argues that today's DEI, less-educated justices fail to emphasize virtue, service, and fairness. They only seek power for power's sake today.

The State of Justice in Indiana

In Indiana, nearly all the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court attended the same lower-ranked law schools of Indiana University. Where has the diversity of thought gone? They practice groupthink here. What happened to wisdom? Is this why many Hoosiers have no confidence in our state's justice system? I have already called for the resignation of Loretta Rush, Chief Justice, labeling her as "a DEI incompetent." Honestly, I think she should have retired at her age.

Too often today, courts rely on technical interpretation alone. No one dares to legislate from the bench, even if equity demands it. (Yet, I am a strict constructionist.)

Accordingly, respect for courts, law, judges, and the current justice system is lower than ever. It is not because of social media, but because of the truth. Many Americans trust gas station sushi more than the justices, and the founding fathers are turning over in their graves in disgust with the current lot, who know little of the classics, or of Kierkegaard, Kafka, or the historic moral philosophers, especially here in Indiana.

The Problem with Today's Legal Professionals

The most unethical lawyers I met over my long legal career worked for the Indiana state government and the courts. They were completely incompetent, yet today they are judges, DEI appointments. Gary High School graduates in charge of Indiana courtrooms—what's the endgame? More bias, not less, was my experience.

In conversations across Indiana and throughout the country, one hears a growing concern about the character and preparation of the lawyers who eventually sit on the bench. It's not just me. Are they scholars or just legal hacks? Are they the best of the best or just backed by politicians, Presidents, and Governors? The President recently called out three justices on the SCOTUS who never support his administration. All appointed by Democrats. He said the others embarrassed themselves, and I agree. Shameful.

The Disconnect Between Education and Justice

Many Americans sense that our courts are filled with highly credentialed lawyers, yet fewer judges are, in fact, well-educated—that is to say, deeply formed by the classical, philosophical, and moral traditions that once shaped the legal profession, save the dissenters in the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh gets it, but then again, he was educated by Jesuit Priests at Georgetown Prep.

The real issue is formation, not intelligence—our higher court judges are often all "brilliant on paper." They can spell, but can they reason? To too many, it seems not.

In my opinion, earlier generations of jurists were steeped in history, philosophy, and religious thought that treated law as a moral enterprise. Today, the path to the bench more often emphasizes technical skill, especially professional advancement, belonging to the club even, which means ideological signaling rather than the older education that cultivated prudence, humility, and moral judgment. Religion has been replaced with secularism.

In God We Trust, because sadly, we cannot trust our Supremes.

The Consequences of Ignoring Equity

That change matters more than we might think. A legal system ultimately reflects the intellectual foundations of those who interpret it. When judges are trained primarily as technicians of statutes, the law can begin to function like a mechanical system of rules rather than a pursuit of justice. Murderer Luigi Mangione had murder charges dropped on technicalities. I learned the hard way that facts don't matter to Indiana's Chief Justice. But now, laws no longer matter, or are laws being enforced like at the border? The rule of law and equal justice for all are lost in history.

I would say the facade of the US Supreme Court building in DC across from the Senate Chambers in the Capitol should have new lettering on it. Perhaps, "Inconsequential" or "Self-important."

The classical tradition that shaped Western law—from Aristotle to Cicero to Aquinas—assumed something different. Judges were expected not only to understand legal texts but also to possess the wisdom necessary to apply them fairly. A sense of justice and tradition lost by the "let it all hang out" generations after the 1960s, where sex, drugs, and rock and roll redefined happiness and instant gratification replaced the worth of real happiness. Is it any mystery why there exists a loneliness epidemic, and all our judges are required to be lonely?

The Growing Unease with the Legal System

Across Indiana and the nation, Americans are increasingly uneasy about the direction of our legal systems. Court decisions are written not as one but by many with impressive technical skill, filled with citations, procedural reasoning, and complex statutory interpretation. Yet, many citizens walk away from these rulings with a simple question: Was justice actually done?

Everyone involved with a court case questions it and finds it beyond horrible. Courts close files, but people involved all remember forever.

This question would not have surprised the thinkers who shaped the foundations of our Western law. Long before modern courtrooms existed, philosophers wrestled with the limits of legal rules and the moral responsibilities of those who apply them. Their conclusion was clear: Law alone is not enough.

The Philosophical Foundations of Justice

Aristotle explained the problem more than two thousand years ago in the Nicomachean Ethics. Laws must be written in general terms, he said, but real life is full of specific circumstances that legislators cannot anticipate. Because of this, rigid adherence to written law can sometimes produce unjust results. The remedy is equity—a principle that corrects the law when strict application would violate fairness.

For centuries, the Anglo-American legal system embraced this idea. Courts recognized two pillars of justice: both law and equity. Law consisted of statutes, precedent, and procedure. Equity represented conscience, fairness, and practical wisdom. Judges were expected to understand both.

That expectation has weakened in modern times. Where is the equity of a DEI judge dropping murder charges in the case involving the cold-blooded murder of the CEO of United Health Care in NYC?

Many courts today emphasize textual interpretation above all else. Judges frequently insist they are merely applying the law and avoiding policy judgments. The intention may be admirable. Judicial restraint protects against abuses of power. But when the desire to appear purely textualist overshadows fairness, the legal system risks losing sight of its ultimate purpose.

The Founders' Vision for Justice

The American founders would have recognized this danger immediately. Their education was steeped in the classical world. Cicero’s writings on republican government were widely read in colonial America. Aristotle’s ethics shaped the understanding of virtue and public duty. Thomas Aquinas integrated classical philosophy with Christian thought, arguing that human law must ultimately serve justice and the common good.

Thomas Jefferson, often remembered for his Enlightenment ideas, was also deeply influenced by this classical tradition. Jefferson believed that republics depend on the character and wisdom of their leaders. Knowledge of history, philosophy, and moral reasoning was not academic decoration—it was preparation for governing a free society.

In the founders’ view, judges were not simply technicians of statutory language. They were guardians of justice.

The Shift in Legal Education

Yet over the past several decades, American legal culture has drifted away from this tradition. Law schools increasingly emphasize analytical technique, court cases, and conformity over philosophical grounding and original thinking. Law students learn how to win arguments but spend less time considering the ethical foundations of law itself. The result can be a judiciary that is brilliant in reasoning but uncertain in moral direction. Legal ethics are a fraud intended to scare the bar into submission to the judges. We have a legal system not for justice or the people or the lawyers, but for the Justices, judges, and powerful insiders today.

Another influence is the inaccurately taught modern interpretation of the separation of church and state. The founders supported institutional separation to protect religious liberty, but they did not intend to remove moral reflection from public life. Early American legal thought freely drew upon religious and philosophical traditions to discuss justice, conscience, and natural rights. Religious freedom has new meanings.

In recent generations, however, many judges hesitate to invoke moral reasoning for fear of appearing ideological or religious. Legal analysis becomes narrower, more technical, and sometimes detached from the everyday sense of fairness that citizens expect from the courts. This shift has consequences.

Restoring Public Confidence in the Legal System

Public confidence in legal institutions depends not only on the accuracy of judicial reasoning but also on the perception that courts are pursuing justice rather than intellectual display. When decisions appear driven by procedural maneuvering or ideological signaling, citizens begin to question whether the system is serving its intended purpose.

Indiana, like many states, is not immune from this broader national trend. Observers increasingly note that judicial debates often revolve around technical interpretation while deeper principles of equity receive less attention. Lawyers argue over language, precedent, and procedural nuance while the public wonders whether common sense fairness has been sidelined. Is real justice a thing of the past? I'd say so based on my experiences.

The Philosophical Warnings of the Past

The danger of this approach was well understood by the philosophers who influenced the American founding and the architects of human society. Aristotle warned that societies decline when leaders pursue reputation rather than virtue. Cicero argued that law divorced from moral truth becomes an empty formality. Aquinas taught that unjust laws lose their legitimacy because they fail to reflect the higher purpose of justice itself.

These classical thinkers did not expect perfection from judges or lawmakers. They understood that human institutions are imperfect. But they insisted that those entrusted with authority must strive for wisdom and moral judgment, not merely technical mastery. That lesson remains relevant today. Today, errors go uncorrected, and justice, despite being human, never admits to erring.

The Need for Balance in the Legal System

No one is suggesting that judges abandon statutes or substitute personal preferences for the rule of law. The rule of law is essential to a free society. But the founders never intended law to function as a mechanical exercise in textual analysis. They believed law should be interpreted with prudence, humility, and an awareness of its moral consequences. Equity exists precisely for that reason.

When courts forget the balance between law and fairness, the public senses that something important has been lost. The legal system may still operate efficiently, but it no longer inspires the same confidence.

Restoring that balance does not require radical reform. It requires intellectual renewal. Judges, lawyers, and citizens alike benefit from reconnecting with the philosophical roots of the legal tradition that built this country.

A Call to Action

The American republic was shaped by individuals who read Greek philosophers, French Existentialists, debated Cicero, and reflected seriously on moral development gone wrong in Germany, and lived for the true nature of justice. Money was never part of it. Self-gratification was never the goal. They believed liberty could survive only if public institutions were guided by virtue as well as intelligence, and to foster the pursuit of happiness, and punish the antisocial and malcontent criminals. They sought, like me, a free civil society based on freedom, the rule of law, and equal justice—blind justice—law and equity.

If modern courts rediscover these essential principles, they can strengthen both the credibility of the judiciary and the confidence of the people it serves. If not, reforms need to be debated, and I am not speaking of packing the court but replacing the failed current members by impeachment or competency testing.

If we do not address the problem, the law risks becoming exactly what the classical philosophers warned about long ago—impressive in form, but woefully uncertain in its commitment to justice. Public confidence in legal institutions erodes with every passing day.