Alito to be the new justice - Page 3

Brad · #31 Oct 31, '05, 10:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hildebrand

Traditional Ang has been pointing out, there are potentially 7 more were those came from. Names like Specter, Murkowski, & Voinovich.

Speculation. Right now we need to focus on the clear and present roadblock. I expect to hear as much from Coulter, Limbaugh, Krystol etc. They didn't want a stealth nominee. They got what they wanted. They best get to work so that we can achieve real results.

Arba Sicula · #32 Oct 31, '05, 10:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Agree on the huge fight and it will be led by those Senate Catholics: Kennedy, Biden, Leahy along with Schumer.

Schumer is Jewish, not Catholic.

Quote:

I can't help but wonder what disgrace this brings on the Church with such visible senators going directly against Church teaching in such a public way. Let us pray.

That "disgrace" is as a trifle compared with the wholesale number of ordinary Catholics who don't follow Church teaching on sexual and other matters.

miguel · #33 Oct 31, '05, 11:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arba Sicula

No, it's not. But, it's our doctrine, and I don't see the Evangelicals and such deciding to renounce the use of contraceptives, which they consider good family stewardship, to follow what the Vatican says, even as so many Catholics don't follow the Vatican ruling on contraception.

You might be right. The damage has been done. But this isn't the point. Griswold was flawed in making contraception a Constitutional right. It isn't. And it was flawed in taking the power of restricting it away from the legislative branch. If it gets overturned, and legislatures try to re-impose restrictions, there would probably be an outcry. That's what I mean by the damage being done. But overturning it is still the right move, constitutionally. Some of the abortifacient "contraceptive" methods might be restricted under abortion restrictions that would be implemented if Roe is overturned. It will still be battle for hearts and minds. But at least this battle will have the hope of bearing fruit in new legislation that won't be undermined by the Courts if some of these horrible decisions are overturned.

**fix** · #34 Oct 31, '05, 11:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arba Sicula

No, it's not. But, it's our doctrine, and I don't see the Evangelicals and such deciding to renounce the use of contraceptives, which they consider good family stewardship, to follow what the Vatican says, even as so many Catholics don't follow the Vatican ruling on contraception.

My point is it is not "just our doctrine" it may be understood from the natural moral law.

miguel · #35 Oct 31, '05, 12:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

My point is it is not "just our doctrine" it may be understood from the natural moral law.

This is true. Jesus sacrifice redeemed all mankind. The sacraments and teachings of his Church are intended for all mankind as well. "Go out to all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded." His mercy and judgement will account for how much each person deliberately rejected him and how much invincible ignorance played into that. Us Catholics will be held to a higher standard, since we supposedly know better.

**fix** · #36 Oct 31, '05, 12:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by miguel

This is true. Jesus sacrifice redeemed all mankind. The sacraments and teachings of his Church are intended for all mankind as well. "Go out to all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded." His mercy and judgement will account for how much each person deliberately rejected him and how much invincible ignorance played into that. Us Catholics will be held to a higher standard, since we supposedly know better.

Yes, I agree and I would say not only will Catholics be held to a greater standard, but the rest of our society is not "off the hook" either. We hardly live on a desert island with no communication or education. We live in an age of many talents and those talents are not always used to seek the truth, but for mundane secular nonsense.

Isilzha · #37 Oct 31, '05, 12:38 pm

Why do you guys think there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court as compared to the rest of the population?

Hildebrand · #38 Oct 31, '05, 1:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isilzha

Why do you guys think there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court as compared to the rest of the population?

Catholics are more reliable conservatives than other faiths.

From an earlier post: "I'd take Catholics on the Supreme Court over most faiths because there is some hope that half of them will actually do their job and interpret the U.S. Constitution, not declare new law by judicial fiat. If most Protestant Christians are willing to have a living/breathing ever-changing Christian faith with no end to it, then they will also be likely to have a living/breathing ever-changing U.S. Constitution. (The Bible can be interpreted in a thousand of different ways by Protestants, just like some treat the US Constitution)

Orthodoxy is crucial in being true to both the Constitution and Christian faith. Judges should never create new constitutional rights that have no basis in the constitution or take away real constitutional rights away from people. The same applies to Christians, we have been given the truth by God through the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not up to us to pick and choose what we like."

Robert in SD · #39 Oct 31, '05, 1:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioCatholic

you cant overturn Roe v Wade without overturning Griswold v Connecticuit.

This is not the case, and I wonder who or what gave you that impression?

miguel · #40 Oct 31, '05, 1:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

...but the rest of our society is not "off the hook" either.

Jesus will weed out the fakers from the truly ignorant.

Hildebrand · #41 Oct 31, '05, 1:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arba Sicula

No, it's not. But, it's our doctrine, and I don't see the Evangelicals and such deciding to renounce the use of contraceptives, which they consider good family stewardship, to follow what the Vatican says, even as so many Catholics don't follow the Vatican ruling on contraception.

Who is saying they want Alito to ban the use of condoms and other contraceptives?

There is no way Roberts and probably Alito would ever consider doing that.

Even "far-right, extremist, radical, (insert other MSM typical words describing faithful Catholic politicians)" Senator Santorum does not support laws that Griswold overturned. He is against the decision of Griswold in creating a new "right to privacy", but he actually believes contraceptives should be available to the public. And does not support such blanket bans on them by legislatures.

Hildebrand · #42 Oct 31, '05, 1:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hildebrand

After Alito is confirmed (and that's a big if):

Roberts - age 50 (hopefully he is anti-Roe)
Alito - age 56 (hopefully he is anti-Roe)
Scalia - age 69
Thomas - age 57

Alito is 55, not 56.

miguel · #43 Oct 31, '05, 2:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert in SD

This is not the case, and I wonder who or what gave you that impression?

I guess you took the statement more literally than I did.

bones_IV · #44 Oct 31, '05, 2:16 pm

The silly thing is when Bush supporters claim he nominated Roberts for pro-life stance. Wrong! Hasn't anyone figured out that Bush is pro-life with exceptions and Roberts is not pro-life, and I have never viewed him as pro-life. Bush is simply paying lip service to us and doesn't do a thing about the Roe v Wade desicion. Alito's words don't prove a thing, let's see the record and we'll see the facts. Actions talk louder than words. As for the white man remarks that are always being made, I think some people need to lighten up.

Thekla · #45 Oct 31, '05, 2:19 pm

I'm angry. I really wanted to see another woman on the Supreme Court and I find it insulting that my president looked at all the brilliant women out there and found first an academic lightweight (Miers) and now another middle aged white man (Alito.) I wanted a woman and I'm angry that we could have had one if my president had thought that brilliant intellect was a good commodity for a woman. I feel like he sunk it on purpose so a woman didn't get on the Court.

And I don't want to hear about how it shouldn't matter about gender or ethnicity from the male descendants of white men. Because of physical strength, they have controlled things from the beginning and continue to pass the baton back and forth to one another.