Justice ReDesigned Podcast

What if we’ve been asking the wrong question about discrimination for more than fifty years?

For decades, American civil rights law has recognized that discrimination does not always announce itself through racial slurs, malicious intent, or explicitly discriminatory rules. Sometimes a policy can appear perfectly neutral—and be administered by decent people with good intentions—while still producing profoundly unequal consequences.

That principle lies at the heart of disparate impact, a doctrine rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Company. Today, that principle is being challenged as the federal government moves civil rights enforcement back toward a greater emphasis on proving intentional discrimination.

In this opening episode of Conversations on Justice: The Disparate Impact Series, I explain why that concerns me.

But this isn’t simply a conversation about Supreme Court decisions or legal doctrine.

It’s personal.

I take you back to 1999, shortly after I became a juvenile court judge, when a 13-year-old Black special education student appeared before me with his wrists handcuffed and his ankles chained. Through his tears, he raised his cuffed hands and cried:

“I want to go home with Mommy.”

No one involved intended to hurt that child.

The substitute teacher wasn’t a racist. Neither was the police officer, the detention officer, or the judge.

And yet there he was.

That experience forced me to confront a question that would eventually change the course of my judicial career:

If good people aren’t intending to discriminate, why are our systems still producing racially disparate outcomes?

When I began examining the numbers, another troubling pattern emerged. Zero-tolerance school discipline policies that appeared race-neutral were disproportionately sweeping African American children out of classrooms and into courtrooms.

The policy was neutral. The outcomes were not.

That distinction eventually helped lead us to redesign the system through the School Justice Partnership—and when we changed the system, arrests fell dramatically, graduation rates increased, and thousands of children remained in school rather than entering the justice system.

That’s why this Conversation begins somewhere deeper than politics.

It begins with human nature.

We naturally gravitate toward people and circumstances that feel familiar. That doesn’t necessarily make us racist. It makes us human. But it also means that institutions cannot simply assume good intentions will always produce fair outcomes.

And that brings us to the question at the heart of this episode—and of this entire series:

Are we judging the character of the people, or are we willing to examine the character of the system?

Because good intentions matter.

But good intentions are not evidence of good outcomes.

And sometimes justice begins when we stop asking only who intended the harm and start asking:

What is the system producing?

“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is often used as a shortcut—a way to dismiss criticism of Donald Trump without answering the facts, the law, or the constitutional concern being raised.

But what happens to a democracy when disagreement is treated as a psychological defect? When opposition becomes pathology, accountability becomes hysteria, and citizens who sound the alarm are portrayed as the real problem?

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steven Teske examines the history and civic function of the “derangement syndrome” insult—from George W. Bush and Barack Obama to Donald Trump—and explains why this rhetoric is more than partisan name-calling. It weakens the habits justice requires: listening, evidence, proportionality, restraint, humility, and the willingness to recognize that a political opponent may be wrong without being insane.

The episode also explores the difference between ordinary political disagreement and genuine constitutional stress. When executive power tests the limits of birthright citizenship, election administration, due process, the free press, or the separation of powers, alarm is not necessarily irrational. Sometimes the smoke alarm is sounding because there really is smoke.

At the center of the discussion is the judiciary’s role as a slower room—a place where political slogans must give way to legal authority, constitutional text, evidence, procedure, and reasoned judgment. Courts are not perfect, but they remain essential because no branch of government should have the final word on the scope of its own power.

The answer is not to reverse the insult or diagnose the other side. It is to redesign the conversation: examine the evidence, demand a limiting principle, answer arguments rather than attack people, and restore dignity to disagreement.

Dissent is not a disease. Accountability is not hysteria. And the citizen who refuses to normalize executive overreach may be exactly what the Constitution was counting on.

Steven Teske

Every journey eventually reaches a place where the questions change.

When I began The Measure, I thought I was writing about politics, constitutional government, and the role of Christian values in public life. Along the way, we explored authority, integrity, conscience, mercy, and the teachings of Christ. But somewhere in that journey, I discovered the series was never ultimately about America.

It became about me.

After more than twenty-two years on the bench, I came to understand that the courtroom was never simply a place where cases were decided. It became the canvas upon which Christ quietly reshaped my understanding of justice, compassion, accountability, and human dignity.

In this final episode, I reflect on the lessons that no law school could teach and no judicial opinion could fully explain. The Constitution asked me to be a faithful judge. Christ challenged me to become a better person. Those callings never competed with one another—they completed one another.

This is not a conclusion about politics.

It is a reflection on purpose.

Not about the authority we hold, but about the lives we touch.

If this series leaves you with one question, I hope it is the same question that now guides my own life:

When my life is measured, will it be remembered by the authority I possessed—or by the dignity I helped others discover within themselves?

Thank you for walking this pilgrimage with me.

Steven Teske

For more than two decades, Steven Teske wore a judge’s robe and exercised the authority entrusted to him by the Constitution. Over time, he discovered that while the law defined the boundaries of his authority, it could never determine the spirit in which that authority would be exercised.

That work belonged to conscience.

In this deeply personal episode, Teske reflects on Christ’s words, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” and explores how those words transformed his understanding of justice, leadership, and public service.

Returning to Vice President J.D. Vance’s call for America to recover its Christian foundations, Teske asks a question that has quietly guided this entire series:

If Christian values are to become the measure of public life, are we willing to let those same values measure our words, our policies, and the consequences they produce?

The conversation acknowledges Vance’s own admission that his “childless cat ladies” remark failed to reflect the dignity taught by Christ, while asking whether that same standard should continue to guide public rhetoric and public policy. It also considers the difficult moral questions raised when policies intended to protect public resources are followed by large numbers of children losing access to food assistance.

This is not an argument about partisan politics.

It is an invitation to examine the relationship between authority and conscience.

Because character is not revealed only by what we intend.

It is revealed by how we respond once the consequences of our decisions become known.

Ultimately, this episode asks every listener the same question Reverend Charles Sheldon asked more than a century ago:

What would Jesus do...now?

Because every lasting redesign of justice begins when authority remains accountable to conscience.

Throughout this series, we’ve explored the teachings of Christ as a measure of justice, integrity, and the responsible exercise of authority. But every moral tradition eventually reaches a moment when its highest ideals become difficult to live.

This is that moment.

Drawing upon more than two decades on the bench, Steven Teske reflects on one of the hardest lessons the courtroom ever taught him: justice is rarely about choosing between right and wrong. More often, it requires holding competing truths together—law and mercy, accountability and compassion, security and human dignity.

Using immigration as a case study—not to debate policy, but to examine the manner in which authority is exercised—Teske revisits Vice President J.D. Vance’s call for America to recover Christian values. If Christ’s teachings are to become the measure of public life, he asks, are we willing to let those same teachings measure the way public authority is exercised?

Along the way, he revisits Reverend Charles Sheldon’s timeless question from In His Steps:

“What would Jesus do?”

Not as a slogan to judge others...

but as a mirror to examine ourselves.

This episode is not about whether immigration laws should exist.

It is about whether justice can ever be separated from compassion, whether accountability can exist without mercy, and whether any public policy—however lawful—should require us to surrender another person’s humanity.

Because the true measure of our convictions is not found in the principles we proclaim...

It is found in what we do when those principles become costly.

The Measure is a seven-part series exploring justice, moral formation, and the responsible exercise of authority.

Because justice is measured not only by the authority we exercise...but by the humanity we preserve while exercising it.

Steven Teske

What if the most important question isn’t about America at all?

For much of this journey, I believed I was wrestling with a political question:

Is America becoming a Christian nation?

But after years on the bench—and months reflecting on Vice President J.D. Vance’s call to recover Christian values—I came to an unexpected realization.

I had been asking the wrong question.

In this fourth installment of The Measure, I explore one of the most important lessons I learned as a judge: justice begins not with answers, but with asking the right questions. Courts do not decide cases based on labels or sincere intentions. They examine evidence. That same principle eventually led me to ask a far more personal question:

If I profess to follow Christ, what evidence does my life provide that I actually do?

Drawing from courtroom experiences and the teachings of Christ, this episode examines the distance between profession and practice, challenging all of us—regardless of our faith or philosophy—to measure our lives not by the values we claim to hold, but by the way we live them.

This is not an episode about judging others.

It is about allowing the mirror to turn toward ourselves.

Because perhaps the greatest danger facing any moral tradition is not criticism from the outside...

but the growing distance between what we profess and how we practice it.

Whether your deepest convictions come from Christianity, another faith tradition, Human Secularism, or no religious tradition at all, the invitation remains the same:

What evidence does your life leave behind?

This episode is part of The Measure, a seven-part series exploring justice, constitutional government, moral formation, and the responsible exercise of authority. Each installment moves beyond political debate toward a more enduring question—not simply what kind of nation we hope to become, but what kind of people we are becoming.

Because justice never asked what we claimed. It asked what the evidence revealed.

What truly holds a free people together?

Political philosopher Samuel Goldman asks whether America can recover a shared civic language capable of sustaining a diverse constitutional republic. Vice President J.D. Vance argues that America must recover Christian values. Both are searching for the same destination, but by different paths.

In this third installment of The Measure, Steven Teske explores a deeper question that emerged during his own pilgrimage:

What if the greatest divide in America is not between Christianity and secularism, but between what we profess and how we live?

Drawing on more than two decades on the bench, Teske reflects on why courts measure conduct rather than labels—and why that same principle may offer one of the most important lessons for our public life. He examines Human Secularism alongside religious traditions, arguing that compassion, humility, integrity, and respect for human dignity are not the exclusive property of any one faith, but virtues that can unite a diverse people when they are genuinely practiced.

Rather than asking us to agree on everything, Looking for Common Ground asks something more demanding:

Can we learn to recognize one another’s humanity before we judge one another’s arguments?

This essay and companion podcast continue the larger journey of The Measure—a seven-part exploration of justice, constitutional government, moral formation, and the responsible exercise of authority. It is a conversation not about winning political arguments, but about becoming the kind of citizens capable of sustaining both liberty and one another.

Because a society is not ultimately united by the values it celebrates. It is united by the integrity with which its people live those values.

“The measure of any faith, philosophy, or moral tradition is not found in what it professes. It is found in the character it produces.”

In the second installment of The Measure, I continue a journey that began with a simple question: Is America a Christian nation? But as I reflected on Vice President J.D. Vance’s argument in Communion, I realized I had been asking the wrong question.

The more important question is not whether America identifies as Christian.

The more important question is this:

How should we measure the integrity of any moral tradition—including Christianity itself?

As a former judge, I spent more than two decades learning that every just decision begins by applying the proper standard. That same principle led me to ask whether Christians should first measure themselves by Christ's teachings before asking the nation to do the same.

Along the way, I also found myself reflecting on something else. Throughout my career, I worked beside extraordinary people from many faith traditions—as well as thoughtful agnostics, atheists, and secular humanists—whose lives consistently reflected compassion, humility, truthfulness, justice, and respect for human dignity. That experience challenged me to think more deeply about where these virtues come from and how they should shape public life.

This episode is not an argument against Christianity.

Nor is it an argument against Human Secularism.

It is an invitation to something much more demanding:

to measure every worldview—including our own—not by the ideals it proclaims, but by the character it produces.

That perspective also reframed the public conversation surrounding faith and politics. If Christian values are to heal a divided nation, then it is fair to ask whether our public rhetoric, our leadership, and our conduct are contributing to that healing—or undermining it.

That question is not directed at one political party or one public figure.

It begins with me.

And perhaps it begins with all of us.

Whether your moral formation comes from Christ, another faith tradition, Human Secularism, or no formal religious tradition at all, I hope this conversation invites you to consider a timeless question:

Does my life bear witness to the values I claim to believe?

This is Part II of The Measure, a seven-part series exploring justice, moral formation, leadership, and the responsible exercise of power.

Because before we redesign systems...

we must first ask what is redesigning us.

Steve Teske

For weeks, I thought I was asking whether America is a Christian nation.

Then I realized I was asking the wrong question.

In this opening episode of The Measure, I explain why a debate that began with Vice President J.D. Vance’s call to restore Christian values ultimately became a deeply personal journey into the meaning of justice, leadership, and moral responsibility.

Rather than asking whether America is Christian, I began asking a much more searching question:

What makes anything Christian?

Is it a label?

A political movement?

A cultural identity?

Or is it measured by whether it reflects the teachings of Christ?

That simple shift changed everything.

As a former judge, I spent more than two decades learning that justice is never determined by labels. Courts don’t decide cases by what people claim. They examine conduct. They ask whether actions match the standard.

I began wondering whether Christians should do the same.

This episode is not an argument for a Christian nation.

Nor is it an attack on Vice President J.D. Vance or those who agree with him.

It is an invitation to examine a deeper question:

If we ask America to embrace Christian values, are Christians—including me—faithfully practicing the teachings of Christ?

Along the way, I share the moment a pastor’s brief sermon completely changed my perspective, why I believe justice and faith begin with asking better questions, and why the standard by which we judge others must also be the standard by which we judge ourselves.

Whether you are a Christian, a member of another faith, or someone who professes no religious faith at all, I hope you’ll join me on this journey.

Because this series is not about persuading anyone to become Christian.

It is about asking whether all of us are living according to the highest values we profess.

If justice begins anywhere, perhaps it begins there.

In this episode:

* Why I believe justice always begins with the right question.

* What prompted my reflection on J.D. Vance’s argument about America’s Christian identity.

* The distinction between measuring America by the Constitution and measuring Christians by Christ.

* Why labels never substitute for conduct.

* The question that transformed this project from a political discussion into a personal pilgrimage.

This is Part I of a seven-part series exploring justice, moral formation, leadership, and the responsible exercise of power.

Because before we redesign systems…

we must first ask what is redesigning us.

What began as a response to Vice President J.D. Vance's book *Communion* unexpectedly became something much more personal.I set out to examine Vance's argument that America has become divided because it has drifted away from its Christian roots. Along the way, I found myself asking a much deeper question—not whether America is a Christian nation, but whether Christians, beginning with myself, are truly practicing the teachings of Christ.In this opening episode of **The Measure**, I explain why this series is different from any previous episode of *Justice ReDesigned*. This is not an argument for a Christian nation, nor is it an attack on Christianity or on Vice President Vance. It is an invitation to examine what it means when political leaders invoke Christian values as the foundation for public policy.Together, we'll explore the difference between Christian identity and Christlike conduct, why truthfulness matters before policy, and why I believe the real measure of leadership is not what we profess—but how we exercise power over others.Whether you are a Christian, a member of another faith, or someone who claims no religious faith at all, this series is for you. The virtues of humility, compassion, mercy, truthfulness, justice, forgiveness, and respect for human dignity are not the exclusive property of Christianity. They are shared across many faith traditions and embraced by countless people of no religious faith. My hope is that this series encourages all of us to ask whether we are living according to the highest values we profess.Over the next seven episodes, we'll explore justice, leadership, immigration, the Constitution, "Render unto Caesar," and the moral responsibilities that accompany every exercise of public authority.Because before we debate policy and justice, we should first ask a more fundamental question:What kind of people—and what kind of leaders—are we becoming?If this conversation encourages you to think more deeply rather than simply agree or disagree, then it has accomplished exactly what I hoped.

Steve Teske