The Supreme Court goes over to Rome

[Maranatha]

The Supreme Court goes over to Rome

One of the perks of being swing voters is that politicians have to work hard to woo you. The Republicans recruited 50,000 Catholic “team leaders” in 2004 and Mr Bush even put up with an earwigging from John Paul II over Iraq so that he could get his picture taken with him (the picture appeared on his website over the slogan “Catholics for Bush”). And what better way of wooing Catholics than nominating their intellectuals to the Supreme Court? This not only delights Catholics. It also embarrasses Democrats, who face a choice between annoying left-wing interest groups or insulting Catholic voters.

more

[T.A.Stobie, SFO]

The pro-life effort knows that the Catholic Church has always be solidly pro-life and anti-abortion and that true followers are pro-life. Few other churches have.

Catholics also tend to be more likely to enter public service than non-catholics.

These two factors mean there are loysal catholics available from the bench to be appointed as pro-life judges on the Supreme Court.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Maranatha

It also embarrasses Democrats, who face a choice between annoying left-wing interest groups or insulting Catholic voters.

Sounds good in theory, but Catholic voters are not particularly unified as a voting bloc.

[davy39]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

Sounds good in theory, but Catholic voters are not particularly unified as a voting bloc.

Just because we will have five justices on the court that are Catholic doesn't mean too much. I hardly think they will always vote the way we want them to. On the other hand, this will really disturb the pro-abortionists and the gay rights people. Especially after we hear that Pope Benedict will be coming over to help the court go the right direction. (Don't laugh, I've already heard this on radio talk shows)

[nucatholic]

I wouldn't mind the Holy Father dropping by to have a chat with the justices. This is history in the making. Now lets wait and see if they rule in accordance with their beliefs!

[threej_lc]

Don't forget that justice Kennedy has already shown he's Catholic in name only.
Josh

[Joe Kelley]

I wish a couple of those "Catholics" would retire and make room for a pro-life Protestants etc.

[BioCatholic]

Originally Posted by nucatholic

I wouldn't mind the Holy Father dropping by to have a chat with the justices. This is history in the making. Now lets wait and see if they rule in accordance with their beliefs!

they cant rule in accordance with their "beliefs". they HAVE to stick to the LAW.

An example:

a public hanging of a juvenile was NOT considered "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" at the time the Constitution was written. therefore, a true constructionist would uphold a sentence condemning a 14 year old to be publically hanged. It doesnt matter how loud the Church yells and screams, he is bound to stick to the law. It isnt a matter of belief, its a matter of what the law says.

[amcalabrese]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

Sounds good in theory, but Catholic voters are not particularly unified as a voting bloc.

Exactly. According to CNN's exit polls, Catholics went 52-47% to Bush (comparing favorably to the 51-48% national numbers). Gone are the days when the Catholic Church in New England was "The Democratic Party at Prayer." Catholics are overrepresented in conservative circles for the same reason Jews are overrepresented in liberal circles -- they have more of an intellectual tradition than other groups in their coalitions.

[amcalabrese]

Originally Posted by threej_lc

Don't forget that justice Kennedy has already shown he's Catholic in name only.
Josh

Why? He took an oath to uphold the law.

My opposition to Roe is not that it leaglized abortion (it did no such thing). Rather it took a political decision out of the hands of the legislature.

[Joe Kelley]

Originally Posted by amcalabrese

Why? He took an oath to uphold the law.
. . . .

He also took an oath to practice his faith. That one doesn't inhibit him why should this one.

[TPJCatholic]

God's law comes before human civil law.

[Maranatha]

Originally Posted by TPJCatholic

God's law comes before human civil law.

Yes!

Natural Law and the Rule of Law

For his part, Justice Scalia tells us that he must stick to the text of the Constitution with only the most specific level of historical example to illuminate the text. Why? To uphold the rule of law. Justices Kennedy and O’Connor embrace the school of "legal process" that binds judges within the interstices of the technique of judging. For them, that is the rule of law. Chief Justice Rehnquist often defers to the legislative judgment, lest he substitute his own view of appropriate policy for those who have legitimate discretion in deciding such matters. Otherwise, he would be violating the rule of law. And Judge Bork famously decried the use of the unwritten natural law as a source for a judge s decision-making. That too would violate the norms of the rule of law.

more

Even more than Roe v. Wade the decision to abandon Natural Law for "legal process" is the most alarming trend in the court today. This is the underlying intellectual battle on the Supreme Court.

The success yesterday was a return (now a slim 5 -4) to natural law as a basis for legal decisions.

[amcalabrese]

Originally Posted by Maranatha

Yes!



Even more than Roe v. Wade the decision to abandon Natural Law for "legal process" is the most alarming trend in the court today. This is the underlying intellectual battle on the Supreme Court.

The success yesterday was a return (now a slim 5 -4) to natural law as a basis for legal decisions.

I see it differently. I do not like the whole "natural law" argument because it opens up the Constitution to everything. Rather, I think that outside of the basic ennumerated and reserved rights, the Constititution assumes that people can govern themselves through elected representatives.

So, in the same way I disagree with Roe because it took away the decision from a legislature, I would also oppose a Supreme Court decision that blanket outlaws abortion. Rather, I think it is a political decision.

[TPJCatholic]

amcalabrese,

Should murder be exempt from SC action as well, in your opinion?

How about slavery?

or rape

or theft?