The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Judge Sotomayor's experience trumps all
May. 26, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version “Sotomayor will likely draw opposition from pro-life groups, although her limited record on abortion may not be enough for strong opposition from Republican lawmakers or to earn her a filibuster in the Senate.”
Sotomayor and Obama (CNS photo)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionSooner or later the Catholic faith of Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be raised as an objection to her nomination and appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judge Sotomayor is a moderate. As a consequence, she is just as likely to be attacked from left as from right. That's probably not what President Obama means by common ground, but one can admire him for finding a woman seemingly so capable of adhering to the law rather than her personal opinion, and for on occasion, even resolving cases contrary to the president's own policy perspectives.
One possible objection to Judge Sotomayor from the left will be her Catholic faith. There are already five Catholics on the court, it will be said. When the court upheld Congress’ limits on the partial-birth abortion ban, there were more than a few grumbles that it's just those Catholics having their way. Completely unfair. Anyone who actually read the opinion knows different.
There is an implicit understanding that the church's admonition to its faithful to change the law permitting the choice of abortion is best understood and applied in light of the scope of office. Catholic legislators make policy and could be so instructed, but as Justice Scalia posited, "a judge has no moral responsibility for the laws his nation has failed to enact." So let's put this canard to rest.
But it wouldn't be a confirmation proceeding unless someone on the right also attempted to make an issue of abortion as well. That's more than unfortunate given how 99.9 percent of the court's work has nothing to do with the subject, and given the present stasis of you jurisprudence, even .01 no doubt overstates the likelihood of the Court moving either way on that topic.
Nevertheless already this morning a pro-life blog has this entry:
In the old days of the Reagan administration, it was thought embarrassing to have a single issue litmus test. It still should be, but it borders on the absurd to oppose a nominee because she has not had occasion to rule upon a particular subject. It's even more absurd, since what she has said illustrates her integrity as a judge.
It is well known to the readers of this publication that President Obama has reversed the Mexico City policy. This Bush administration policy limited family planning money to overseas nonprofit groups. Contrary to far too much misreporting, the reversal does not result in federal taxpayer support for abortion, but it does allow federal money to float to organizations that use their own resources for that purpose.
If you applied for a federal job and were told that you could have it so long as you voted the straight Republican ticket, you might think that an unconstitutional condition -- in essence, an improper leveraging of federal resource to have you sacrifice your free-speech rights. Frankly, that's a tough issue in knowing where the government is wrongfully using its funds to penalize you for your point of view differentiates from where the government is expressing its own opinion is often treacherous territory. It's also territory where the distinctions are so thin that it would be easy for an activist judge to insert her own personal policy perspective.
So when the Mexico City policy was challenged in front of Judge Sotomayor some years ago as a violation of free speech by pro-choice advocates, it would not have been surprising to see an outcome striking down the policy.
That's not, however, what Judge Sotomayor did. Judge Sotomayor’s approach to the case was entirely objective. Relying upon the previous precedent of her circuit, which had rejected a similar claim, Judge Sotomayor faithfully turned away the claimed free-speech violation on the merits and rejected others on the basis of federal court jurisdiction that the parties lacked standing (a fussy, usually conservative favorite for keeping judges from encroaching legislative turf) in so far as the only harm alleged was to foreign organizations and not to the plaintiffs.
On the main issue, Judge Sotomayor noted what could not be denied from Supreme Court precedent: namely, that “the government,” in her words, "is free to favor's antiabortion position over the pro-choice position with public funds."
President Obama did not select Judge Sotomayor for her judicial outcomes, but for her experience. Referencing Oliver Wendell Holmes and his famous aphorism that the life of the law is not logic but experience, President Obama not surprisingly is admiring of a life that has gone from a single-parent family in a South Bronx housing project to the top of her Cardinal Spellman high school class, Princeton University and Yale Law School.
In terms of legal training, the opposition will find it difficult to find any omission in preparation -- the prosecution of dozens of criminal cases as an assistant DA in Manhattan; a partner in a major New York firm dealing with highly detailed and complex intellectual property and commercial litigation; a trial judge for six years showing a meticulous attention – and yes empathy – for the factual record as it affects real human lives, and an appellate judge for 11 years where she participated in over 3000 decisions and authored roughly 400.
It's doubtful that anyone has totally catalogued all of these cases and no doubt they will be flyspecked. Yet, my preliminary review is that this is a woman who cares deeply about justice, both when the facts cry out for it – as in her favorable view of asylum cases of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, and when the facts do merit special consideration, as when churches and religious associations are trying to maintain their own internal procedures without state interference.
Of course, this woman is from New York, and at the risk of enormous stereotype of the Empire State, those of us on the West Coast have always noticed a certain -- well, curt efficiency -- in the New York personality. This is not likely to play as well as the bon vivant boyish charm of John Roberts, but hey, we can’t all smile pretty. And as we say in Malibu, Have a Nice Day!
Kmiec is chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and author of Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the big question about Barack Obama (Overlook Press/Penguin).
I think the OIC's ("One Issue
I think the OIC's ("One Issue Catholics") should make their views known, as they usually do, and then let the judicial process go forward. I believe there are enough checks & balances in the House and Senate to insure the President's choice is right for the country at this time. Good luck, Judge Sonia!
A nominee's religion is
A nominee's religion is relevant only insofar as it affects judicial opinions. E.g., a radical Islamic would say that Jews have no rights. Her opinions, so far, do not seem to 'follow the Catholic line', so Catholicism should not be a factor. What possible other objection could the left have? Religion, here, is a strawman to distract from her far left-wing opinions. Her reversed decision in the firefights' reverse discrination case, where she was pointedly critized by the US Supreme Court,, along with her open statements that the court should be a 'policy making' body' should be more than enough to reject her out of hand. Omaba is, as expected, holding a pair of democratic party cards: the race card and the gender card. For now, it seems to be a winning hand.
Dearest Richard, Among
Dearest Richard,
Among several other startling and unsourced statements in your comment, could you kindly for me please back up these few:
1) "a radical Islamic would say that Jews have no rights" Where in the Q'ran do you find this?
2) "from her far left-wing opinions" Which? "Her reversed decision in the firefights' reverse discrination case, where she was pointedly critized by the US Supreme Court,, along with her open statements that the court should be a 'policy making' body'?"
3) Was the mispelling of our President's name purposeful or the same pernicious finger-crossing of which I am so often a victim? Was, in your writing, the lack of proper title an indication of your lack of patriotism?
Several other questions present themselves subsequent to your comment, but I ask these three for now and hold in reserve the rest.
your most humble servant
frere charles
You asked where in the Quran
You asked where in the Quran does it say Jews have no rights. Jews and the rest of us infidels must live in submission to Islam or be killed per Sura 9:29.
As you should be well aware, the peaceful passages of the Quran such as “ there is no compulsion in religion” are all cancelled by passages revealed by Mohammed later in his life per the passage below:
2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
The Quran commands that all non Muslims that do now agree to live in subjugation should be hunted down and killed:
9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Muslims are commanded to look at Mohammed as a shining example of how they should live their own lives. Here are some Hadiths about Mohammed:
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795; Narrated Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57; Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali {the fourth Caliph} and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25; Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
About 99% of hadith references to Jihad are about violence, not about interior struggle.
The Quran mentions in three places about Allah turning Jew into Apes and Pigs. Recently, many Muslim leaders have interpreted these passages that today’s Jews are the descendents of Apes and Pigs.
Here is what Mohammed has to stay about the final days:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177; Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Christians and Jews universally agree that violent passages in the Bible only relate to specific commands and that time. Today and throughout the history of Islam, millions of Muslims believe that the Quran calls for them to wage violent struggle to establish the hegemony of Islam. The Quran specifically calls for deception, so it is acceptable to present Islam as a peaceful religion until the forces of Islam have the upper hand, and then Jihad must be waged.
Dear Jerry, While uncertain
Dear Jerry,
While uncertain of your source for such a long listing of quotes out of context or apochryphal (certainly not your own reading of the Koran; perhaps Spencer?) I trust certain Catholic clergy and religious upon this point:
Please see the Roman Catholic Deacon Dardess's books on Islam, including Do We Worship the Same God?
Also see the Brtish Catholic Karen Armstrong's work.
Above all be sure to visit once again the great Roman Catholic Sister Joan Chittister's collaborative work on The Tent of Abraham, which must be required reading in this field.
I also urge you to review Our Holy Father's words of Islam upon his recent journey to the Holy Land, and to remember the moving sight of his praying in Turkey's Blue Mosque.
your poorest servant,
frere charles
I'm all for those who
I'm all for those who encourage Muslims to interpret the Koran is a peaceful way, but the reality is that even if 1% obey the Koran's command to hunt down and kill infidels, that is 10 million people.
You have to bury your head in the sand to think there are not major problems with Islam and blame it on Westerners misinterpreting the Koran. Entire theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia teach the Koran in violent and misogynistic ways. Go to youtube to watch a Palestinian children's television feature a little girl calling the the Jews descendents of apes and pigs. You have to ignore the historical fact the Mohammed ordered and participated in the beheadings of hundreds of Jews.
It's a whole lot easier to be "peaceful" "sophisticated" and "nuanced" than confront the problem.
Based upon your comment, I
Based upon your comment, I googled "Spencer vs. Armstrong" and found this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016230.php
Let's hope that Armstrong is right and that Islam is inherently peaceful, but millions of its believers today and those with great power running Islamic states seem to disagree.
Dear Jerry, Your rhetorical
Dear Jerry,
Your rhetorical purposes require you to assert without citation of any source nor authority:
"Christians and Jews universally agree that violent passages in the Bible only relate to specific commands and that time."
Would this were so.
Witness the Middle East. Read here the articles from Catholic Workers in Palestine. Are they imagining it David and Goliath all over again, but with a much reduced Goliath?
Witness our invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq, despite the moans from two Popes. Read the Holman Bible Publisher's Marine's Bible and Soldier's Bible with its related materials. Read your history of Oliver Cromwell; remember the decimation of the original inhabitants of this land once known as Turtle Island, in the name of our religion.
Would there existed such a universal consensus for peace and non-violence among our fellow Christians and Jews. We can only pray, and act in nonviolence. Remember Saint Francis of Assisi travelling unarmed in time of Crusade to sit and to pray with the Muslim leader whom we Christians were invading and attacking without provocation, without threat.
just wondering,
pray for me,
your poor servant
frere charles
Your history is incorrect
Your history is incorrect that there was no provocation or threat by Muslims during the time of the Crusades. The revisionist history that all provocation was by Christians and Muslims were just peaceful people does not stand the test of reason. I suppose the Muslims had to march to India and make incredible slaughter of the Hindus because it was the Hindu's fault too.
The original point of your post was to challenge whether there was anything in Islamic Scripture to justify oppression of the Jews. I provided scriptual references, historical references and contemporary references. You ignore them and go off on tangents. That does not reflect well on you.
You should not slander our troops with your "brutal occupation" nonsense. The crime of putting panties of the heads of prisoners at Abu Grahib were being prosecuted before the photos were released. Focusing on that is like focusing only on the regrettable rape that some of our soldiers did in France while fighting the Nazis and then railing on about a brutal occupation of France. Nothing has changed in Iraq even though your messiah, Barack Obama, is now in charge.
Have Christians in the past committed war crimes in the name of Christianity? Yes. We're sorry. Don't expect to see any apologies by Mullahs in the Middle East because Jihad is called for in their scripture.
I never said in my post that all Muslims are bad. Yes, St. Francis was surprised he was not martyred by Muslims which certainly witness of the truth that there are good Muslims. That tangential point is irrelevant.
It is wonderful and appropriate that we give our soldiers spiritual nourishment with publications such as the Soldier's Bible. Please provide any evidence that the Soldier's Bible calls for and has led to soldier committing acts against God.
In the Crusades, condemned at
In the Crusades, condemned at the time within the Catholic Church while urged by other preachers, people from western Europe agressively invaded and occupied the Middle East. In the most recent invasion of Iraq, forces from the west again invaded brutally and agressively occupy the Middle East, this time condemned directly and unequivocably by two seated Pontiffs: Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I bow to their wisdom and judgment, not yours, my dear friend; please forgive me.
You ask:
"Please provide any evidence that the Soldier's Bible calls for and has led to soldier committing acts against God."
Answer:
Fallujah.
You assert:
"The crime of putting panties of the heads of prisoners at Abu Grahib were being prosecuted before the photos were released."
Answer: absurd, and against the facts in the case. It was not harmless "frat pranks" as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Baby Bush tried to sell us through their office of public diplomacy. The evidence is otherwise, most cruel and unusual, illegal and immoral. See also Guantanamo and our several secret torture chambers worldwide. Thank God we have a brave and decent American now as President, and not just a mercenary tool for British Petroleum.
You write:
"St. Francis was surprised he was not martyred by Muslims"
Upon what authority do you base this new insight into Franciscan history, that Saint Francis's journey to speak and pray in the interest of negotiating peace with the Muslim leader upon Muslim lands which we were busily invading and occupying brutally, was in fact a suicide mission and that Saint Francis sought his own death, to his own great disappointment at finding a warm, gracious and generous reception from the people and the leader of that distant land we travelled so far to invade without cause?
Sir, I see that corresponding with you is fruitless. Your comments, if not cruel, are certainly unusual. I bid thee peace!
your poorest servant
frere charles
Fallujah is not an answer.
Fallujah is not an answer. Many American soldiers died bring peace to Fallujah which we could have carpet bombed instead. Shame on you for slandering our troops. You present no evidence that spiritual support for our soldiers led to war crimes.
You also fail to acknowledge in your fantasy world that Abu Grahib was being prosecuted before the photos were released so it obviously was not condoned. What they did was wrong, but it does not compare the torture by Islamist of pulling out chunks of flesh and leaving mutilated bodies to intimidate the locals.
I acknowledge that Francis of Assissi was not harmed and there are good Muslims. I believe I am correct that I expected to be martyred, but if I'm wrong it is irrelevant.
Apologies by the Popes did not mean there were no provications. Crusaders did violent acts outside their commission. Saying that you are sorry for fighting a religious war doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason.
Where is your response of the Muslim slaughter against the Hindus?
Why do live in the fantasyland that there is no greater problem in
The peace of the grave is no
The peace of the grave is no peace.
Res ipsa loquitur, except for this one astonishing phrase:
"I believe I am correct that I expected to be martyred, but if I'm wrong it is irrelevant."
my dear Jerry,
You write that you "expected to be martyred?"
my dear, dear boy . . .
well, I suppose we all can have our hopes . . .
But I do not think your African wife would find your failure at being martyred "irrelevant."
wonderingly yours
frere charles
Unfortunately, Richard, you
Unfortunately, Richard, you fail to look at the facts. The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision on the firefighter's "reverse discrimination" case, so to say her decision has been reversed is incorrect at this time. The decision will be made in the next few weeks, but until the decision is rendered, you are being merely speculative.
The other reference to Judge Sotomayer's saying that the court should be a policy making body is misquoted. Here is the actual quote:
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know." Legal scholars have noted that her statement is entirely factual. She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
If you want to be honest then I suggest you stop listening to the rhetoric, and look at her record. Granted, that would require a lot more time and effort, but at least your statements would be based on facts.
And how sad that you think only race and gender are her qualifications. From what I have read and looked at, she is a judge who would bring a great deal of experience, intelligence, and knowledge to the court. President Obama has made an excellent choice.
Dear Anna, Your decision in
Dear Anna,
Your decision in this case must remain the most brilliant, eloquent and well-researched statement I have yet seen upon all these wonderful NCRonline pages.
Deo Gratias
yours ever,
frere charles
Judge Sotomayor is about as
Judge Sotomayor is about as good of a judges us conservatives can expect to get. However, valid points are raised.
I have no doubt that if you get enough liberal judges who impose their personal opinion, they will agree that a racially blind test that determines qualifications for a job be thrown out if racial quotas are not obtained. However, racial quotas unjustly discriminate and clearly violate the Constition, but that never stops a liberal from imposing his views transforming the Constitution into a "living document."
Scriptures call for us Catholics to care for the poor but commands us not to give preferential treatment to the poor when rendering judgement in Levitus 19:15.
"You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly."
There is reason why the symbol of justice is blindfolded, but Pres. Obama has stated that we should let our empathy for certain groups determine judgement.
Futhermore, The Judges view of the superiority of her gender and racial group to make judgement is offensive:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
What would you say if a white man said:
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life."?
Victimhood is not the answer because the Bible specifically calls us to judge justly, not give preferential treatment to the poor.
What a strange
What a strange quote...Leviticus says. Old Testment. Why, as Catholics, shouls we give precedence to Old Testment thought on giving to the poor when Jesus said, in the NEW TESTAMENT, "Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor." I believe that's what he told the rich man who wanted to know what he needed to do to be holy. So, you prefer some second hand quote from Leviticus, when Jesus came to fulfill the OT? And, may I say, that's the reason that I find all the Biblical fundamentalists so interesting. You all find the little quote that reenforces your thought and make that your starting point. Sorry, I'll take Jesus' view before I look to the OT. And if you were a poor person that needed help, I would doubt that you'd be all that impressed with the rather callous quote that you chose to support whatever case you were attempting to make. As to your other point, the woman has far more than her sex and nationality to recommend her. You appear to be a rather sexist person who believes that there must be a far more qualified white male out there who deserves to get this position.
You confuse two issues. Both
You confuse two issues.
Both the Old and New Testament speak of our obligation to help the poor. Not helping the poor is a sin of ommission and we will be held to account on how much we donate.
However, bias in a matter of justice between a poor man and a rich man is prohibited.
The Old Testament was not replaced by the New Testament.
so you are saying Jesus was
so you are saying Jesus was joking when he cancelled that whole "eye for an eye" thimg?
Or when Saint James proclaims religion pure and simple being to care for widows and orphans in their distress?
Of course neither of your
Of course neither of your points has anything to do with justice. How many times to I have to say that it is our obligation to care for the things St. James called for without making this irrelevant point?
Are you saying that if a poor man does a home invasion robbery of a rich man and terrorizes his family a judge should show preference for the poor man. If a black man makes a contract with a white man and breaks it we should wave it because of our concern for minorities?
Dear Jerry, Do you really
Dear Jerry,
Do you really mean to say that Jesus abolishing Old Testament law in the creation of his new covenant ha nothing to do with the LAW??
When Jesus abolished the whole eye for an eye thing (something many people who call themselves Christian still fail to perceive despite frequent reading of the Bible and despite the murder of Our Lord) he had EVERYTHING to do with justice, despite your assertion here it does not have "anything to do with justice."
Did you pull the rest of your comment here out your hat; I can find no source for it in my words, despite your desperate adscription.
Speaking of things in Black and White you elsewhere write:
'Thomas Sowell, our greatest living philosopher according to playwright David Mamet, writes elequently on the subject. I guess you wouldn't call him racist since he is black, but so you'll have to go back to the fallback position of calling him an Uncle Tom. Per Dr. Sowell:
"It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his "empathy" determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge."'
The judiciary is not composed of baseball umpires. The law is not binary. In other words, the law is not either/or. The comparison is basically fallacious. Otherwise by now even Minnesota would have two senators.
And why your desperately wearing race upon your sleeve, this sports philosopher, your wife . . .? To establish a certain street cred? We still have not heard whether or not you are Roman Catholic, as I am.
Proof that English is an incompetent tongue lies in the fact that when you transcribe phonetically eloquently by your own bizarre pronunciation you write it out incorrectly. Dude. Do a spell check, if you wish to gain credibility.
With this advice from one who has none, I remain
your poorest servant
frere charles
I'm all for an all black
I'm all for an all black female supreme court if they are all like Janice Rodgers Brown.
Liberals try to play the race and sex card with Conservatives, but liberals will work to destroy any conservative minority such as Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada that coservatives fully support because they care about principles not race.
Stop with your hate.
Dear Jerry. You are simply
Dear Jerry.
You are simply irrepressible!
You write:
" . . .liberals will work to destroy any conservative minority such as Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada that coservatives fully support because they care about principles not race."
Tell me, Jerry, please. I need a good laugh. What principles did Professor Anita Hill bring to the table in her US Senate testimony?
Where's the love, Jerry?
yours
frere charles
I should add the Leviticus
I should add the Leviticus 19:15 quote was brought to my attention by two practicing Jews, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved. While your dismissal of their (and our) sacred Torah is offensive, I'm sure your offense is tempered by your ignorance.
The quote is hardly callous and I made a point in my original post which you ignored that it does not conflict with our concern for the poor. There is a reason the symbol of justice has a blindfold over it. Please ponder that.
You make the charge of me being sexist (and implicitly racist since you said I must want a white male) with no evidence which is a standard hateful ad hominen attack of the left. Your failure to hold women and minorities to the same standard as white men is a soft form of sexism and racism.
I am proud of my mixed race African-European wife and my mixed race children. You know nothing about me to make reckless charges.
Thomas Sowell, our greatest living philosopher according to playwright David Mamet, writes elequently on the subject. I guess you wouldn't call him racist since he is black, but so you'll have to go back to the fallback position of calling him an Uncle Tom. Per Dr. Sowell:
"It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his "empathy" determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052709.php3
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060209.php3
Katie, despite your rhetoric I have no doubt you are a nice person who is well intentioned. I'd have you babysit my children before I would randomly pick out a name from the phone book. I wish reason and logic had greater power to overcome emotional righteousness. God Bless You.
Sir, kindly examine this,
Sir, kindly examine this, your statement carefully:
"I'd have you babysit my children before I would randomly pick out a name from the phone book."
Do you really mean to imply that "Katie" would do better with your children than some random stranger? More importantly, do you see anything in your assumption that "Katie" would willingly work as your servant in childcare? Upon which of her professional credentials do you amke this assumption, Sir? Or did you make that assumption based upon her apparent sex? May we call this by its name, sexist, without your also calling us leftists? Should "Katie" be honored by this statement, or "put in her place?"
And what does your African wife have to say about your hiring women to care for her childrne?
Michael Medved, the right wing movie reviewer? Sir!
David Mamet recommends your choice of philosphers?: "Thomas Sowell, our greatest living philosopher according to playwright David Mamet, writes elequently on the subject."
Please, sir, when you wax eloquent, try to spell eloquently correctly.
just wondering
don't shoot!
a poor servant
(but you do not call me for childcare, despite my professional credentials??)
frere charles
And, perhaps when you talk
And, perhaps when you talk about children, you might try spelling that word correctly as well. Also, I assume when you say "amke" you mean "make"?
You see, sir, you are not the only one who can play this particular rhetorical game, that is, attempting to minimize an argument by critiquing a person's spelling; effectively accusing them of being uneducated.
In the future, when you criticize someone's spelling, perhaps you might try spelling correctly yourself?
Just a thought.
Your servant,
Clint
My Dear Brother Clint, How
My Dear Brother Clint,
How very delightful and such a great relief to hear from you once more!
Please send all of my love and prayers to the community of Saint Meinrad's (wait, now, have I spelled that correctly, it seems a peccadillo of yours . . . Help me now with this awkward and nonphonetic tongue . . .is it I before E except after M?)
I notice you present no response to my more substantial comments.
For instance have you yet found a particular instance for your scandalous accusations against our communities of religious women or were you simply blowing smoke?
your poorest servant,
frere charles
Based upon your writings, you
Based upon your writings, you are obviously not a man of good faith.
A leftist writer accuses me of being a racist because I oppose a particular Latina justice who has made racist statements. Only at that point do I mention I have a mixed race wife to specifically bring out how the writer has no idea what my background is to make such a hateful charge. You then accuse me of grandstanding with race! Furthermore you then use the inappropriate term "African wife" which you would (rightly) excoriate a conservative for using.
Saying that I would trust someone with my kids is not an insult for normal people. You are well aware of that but try to craft another ridulous argument that saying so is sexist and beneath her dignity. Gee, us normal folk where I live take turns baby sitting each other's children and don't consider it an insult.
Your obviously more interested in ad hominem attacks than charitable dialouge.
Sorry, I don't have time to spell check everything.
Kindly cite your source for
Kindly cite your source for this indirect quote:
"Pres. Obama has stated that we should let our empathy for certain groups determine judgement."
"someone who understands that
"someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." That "quality of empathy," he said, is "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/06/behind_the_blindfol...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
Let's face it, you don't care about sources or truth. You could google up the answer in a few seconds. You make the challenges of "cite your sources" just trying to discredit someone. When someone give you the answer, you don't acknowledge it and go back to your fantasy world.
Dearest Jerry, MY fantasy
Dearest Jerry,
MY fantasy world??
Okay, well, I don't have a television, the vicarious locus of YOUR fantasy world . . .
my fantasy world . . . now, where would that be . . .
I know, I'll read once more that Oxford World Classics edition of the Merchant of Venice, in particular Portia's great speech:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jerry,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
Hey, wait just one inute here . . .
Truncated and butchered though it be, your apparent (as unascribed) citation of the President of the United States paraphrases this great and empathetic Shakespearean speech. Empathy, mercy, under the law, what's the difference?
You say tomayto and I say tomahto
you say captial punishment and I say homicide . . .
your most poor servant,
frere charles
President Obama is holding 60
President Obama is holding 60 Democratic cards, which is why Souter decided he could safely retire (one hates to quit a job and not be sure one can actually leave because some Republican blowhard is blocking the nomination of your replacement).
Yes, I would call a 60 "shut up and vote" majority a winning hand.
Elections matter.
The statement that should
The statement that should dismiss her out of hand is the one she made in which she said, in 2001, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived this life.” This is a racist statement made by Judge Sotomayor, which, if made by a white judge about a Latina woman, would result in his immediate disqualification and public ostracization. Such a racist statement is offensive. It seems, as Stuart Taylor, of "National Journal" put it, "Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist".
This, along with, as Obama put it, her "empathy" for people from the bench makes her, in my opinion, unfit for service as a judge on any bench, from the lowest municipal court, all the way to the Supreme Court. The one thing we do not need is a judge who rules based on how she "feels" about a case. Either we believe in equal protection under the law, or we do not. Either we believe that the law is the law, regardless of who is in front of the bench, or we do not.
An empathetic, racist judge is something that the United States can definitely do without. I could not care less whether she is Catholic or not, or what her positions are on issues such as abortion or the death penalty or homosexual marriage, etc. She already disqualified herself in my opinion, in 2001 when she gave her speech.
Dear Clint, Out there in the
Dear Clint,
Out there in the real world, is your name Limbaugh?
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
Ah, Frere Charles, ha ha ha.
Ah, Frere Charles, ha ha ha.
Thank you for the compliment, but no. I am not a Limbaugh. Unlike some, I use my real name.
I wonder what makes you say so? Surely it is not that you think only someone like Rush Limbaugh could possibly disagree with you or with President Obama's pick of Sotomayor? Surely you are not trying to stifle genuine debate by using rhetorical tricks? After all, you have criticized me and others here for the use of these very tactics.
Indeed, it must be that you intended to pay me a compliment, for which I am grateful.
Your servant, sir.
Clint
No, my dearest brother
No, my dearest brother Oblate, Clint:
It's because only Limbaugh gets paid enough to spout something as unjust, wrong, hateful, racist and false as this (and even Limbaugh needs a goodly load of oxycontin before he can do it. Did you?).
Here are your words. Examine your conscience faithfully in the following:
"The statement that should dismiss her out of hand is the one she made in which she said, in 2001, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived this life.” This is a racist statement made by Judge Sotomayor, which, if made by a white judge about a Latina woman, would result in his immediate disqualification and public ostracization. Such a racist statement is offensive. It seems, as Stuart Taylor, of "National Journal" put it, "Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist".
This, along with, as Obama put it, her "empathy" for people from the bench makes her, in my opinion, unfit for service as a judge on any bench, from the lowest municipal court, all the way to the Supreme Court. The one thing we do not need is a judge who rules based on how she "feels" about a case. Either we believe in equal protection under the law, or we do not. Either we believe that the law is the law, regardless of who is in front of the bench, or we do not.
An empathetic, racist judge is something that the United States can definitely do without. I could not care less whether she is Catholic or not, or what her positions are on issues such as abortion or the death penalty or homosexual marriage, etc. She already disqualified herself in my opinion, in 2001 when she gave her speech."
For your convenience I uploaded Portia's great speech on empathy above, under your friend Jerry. Consider it carefully once more. Perhaps they do not teach it at Saint Meinrad's; how unfortunate, as it is so much more eloquent and just than the hate you spew here.
your poorest servant
frere charles
Thank you Professor Kmiec for
Thank you Professor Kmiec for this brilliant and rapid response, and for all of your fine and scholarly work.
While admiring each paragraph (often requiring a few readings to follow the thread correctly) I note in particular your penultimate parting shot:
"Of course, this woman is from New York, and at the risk of enormous stereotype of the Empire State, those of us on the West Coast have always noticed a certain -- well, curt efficiency -- in the New York personality. This is not likely to play as well as the bon vivant boyish charm of John Roberts, but hey, we can’t all smile pretty."
As one from the Northeast, I second your observation of a certain curt efficiency, but perhaps this is what we need upon the bench to rein in the endless ideological bullying of Justice Scalia. Certainly Judge Sotomayor is the sort of Catholic we require, not the right-wingers who would have been welcomed into the College of Cardinals by the present regime in Rome, and who oddly who had no trouble blessing more efficient modes of death penalty at the very moment the Pope munched birthday cake in the Rose Garden. Perhaps with Judge Sotomayor we may find a more adequate and comprehensive representation of Roman Catholic moral Theology and social justice than previously. Calling the present most Catholic justices Catholics would be like calling Robert Novak or Newt Gingrich or Tony Blair or Neuhaus Catholics.
Oh, wait a minute . . . word just in: They are/were?
You write of the "bon vivant boyish charm of (Chief Justice) John Roberts." My one and only experience of Justice Roberts is seeing him grimly muff the Oath of Office at the recent Inaugural of our President, apparently in a desperate effort to avoid having upon his most clean and Catholic conscience having sworn in my candidate Barack Hussein Obama. I saw no bon vivance nor boyish charm, but a rough ideologue. One would imagine the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sworn to uphold and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, entrusted with the faithful interpretation of this Constitution, should faithfully recall the most important words from that Constitution he will ever publicly recite, and yet he could not, he would not. This is not boyish charm, but the ruthlessness of a great white shark.
Thank God for Judge Sotomayor, and may God bless her and strengthen her - pro multos annos! Facing Scalia and "Catholic" company every day across the bench wore down even the great Judge Souter; may God strengthen this great Catholic woman for the hard task ahead of seeing Peace and Justice embrace!
"Calling the present most
"Calling the present most Catholic justices Catholics would be like calling Robert Novak or Newt Gingrich or Tony Blair or Neuhaus Catholics."
"This is not boyish charm, but the ruthlessness of a great white shark."
As this is my first visit to NCR, I have not had the pleasure of reading your comments before, Frere Charles. However, I take great consolation in knowing that the calumnies that flow from your pen, er, keyboard, are not those of an ordained minister of the Roman Catholic Church. Please don't poison the title of those who serve the faithful.
God bless,
Dan
Dear Dan in Chicago, We also
Dear Dan in Chicago,
We also surf who only stand on waves.
I am so glad to serve you so well, and I stand by those statements most humbly.
Thanking you for your curial censorship, I remain, most humbly
your poorest servant,
frere charles OSB Oblat (Subiaco)
Frère Charles, Thank you so
Frère Charles,
Thank you so much for so many sensible replies on this board. I look forward to reading many more! It is the People of God that are Church; there is no divide between clerics and laity unless we refer to pure delusion.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"My one and only experience
"My one and only experience of Justice Roberts is seeing him grimly muff the Oath of Office at the recent Inaugural of our President, apparently in a desperate effort to avoid having upon his most clean and Catholic conscience having sworn in my candidate Barack Hussein Obama."
PRICELESS!
Dear MeToo, Thank you Me
Dear MeToo,
Thank you
Me Too
I shall light a candle for you in our Mexican parish during our regular last Saturday of the month all night men's vigil before the Blessed Sacrament, if you promise not to consider this paraliturgical act of devotion simony for your great and understanding and compassionate kindness and demonstration of civility here.
Deo Gratias
your most feeble servant
frere charles
Thanks. I promise.
Thanks. I promise.
It is silly to deem Judge
It is silly to deem Judge Sotomayor a "Great Catholic" when according to news media reports doesn't attend Mass. She may be a great woman and there are plenty of people who go to Mass who are "bad" Catholics, but going to Mass is one minimum requirement before giving fawning praise of "Great Catholic."
Shame on you for pretending you are God and making such presumptions about Judge Roberts.
And shame on you for
And shame on you for presuming to judge the religiousness of another human based on your definition of holiness. How do you know that this woman is not a great Catholic? Based on Mass attendance? She may be in perpetual conversation with the Lord, for all you know. I smell a lot more politics than religion in your reply. I would also hope that others don't judge you in your life merely on the snide and rude reply you left here.
Gee, I opine that not going
Gee,
I opine that not going to Mass leaves a person somewhere below the level of an outsider's fawning praise of "Great Catholic" even though she still may be a "Great Woman" and you give me vitriol that I'm judgemental?
I call out another person who makes wild assumptions and claims Roberts has the "ruthlessness of a great white shark" and that is rude? Why do you have no words for criticism for that person? Could it be that you are polically biased?
Unlike liberals, I don't use my personal feelings for my "definition of holiness." Do you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church that Mass Attendence is important for our spiritual development?
Hi Jerry! How nice to hear
Hi Jerry!
How nice to hear from you again, so little do you post here on your favorite periodical's website!
Permit me please one question. Are you calling me here?:
'I call out another person who makes wild assumptions and claims Roberts has the "ruthlessness of a great white shark" and that is rude?'
Yes. You are right. I was being quite rude to the Great White Shark, and very unfair as well. No Great White Shark ever found that lethal injection as a method for the state to murder a human being (remember the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace last November decalring the deathe penalty homicide?) not to be cruel nor unusual, as did, as you call him here, Roberts. Heck, in Bush's Texas they did it all of the time, more than any other state in history, all with the blessing of that self-proclaimed Catholic Al Gonzo. Why should not those reputed Catholics Roberts and Alito and Thomas go along, at the very same moment the Pope munched birthday cake in the Rose Garden?
What a relief we may finally get a true and faithful and Great Catholic upon the bench for a change, in Judge Sonia Sotomayor!
in union of prayer,
your worst servant
call me any time you like!
frere charles
Of course you give more
Of course you give more misinformation.
Here is the document from the Vatican that confirms that a faithful Catholic may have legitimate disagreement on captial punishment but not abottion.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion...
Dear Jerry, How wonderful to
Dear Jerry,
How wonderful to hear from you once more. Please, write more often!
Interesting interpretation and reading of various high documents, ancient and venerable. How unfortunate you must read them in such an inefficient language, leading to such grave confusion.
Are you not familiar with Pope John Paul II's declaration that, given the effective nature of the modern penal system, there is no longer any legitimate nor moral reason for the imposition of the death penalty? Or do you grant unto yourself the right to hold other opinions from that Pope? My goodness, you sound like a "liberal!" Well, welcome, my brother, but how does that hold with your obedience-of-thought buddies like Clint Green?
You refer to a document from Cardinal Ratzinger. Do you know the same Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)'s personally appointed Commissioner for Justice and Peace declared last November that the death penalty is Homicide, pure and simple, as does every civilized nation on the face of the earth, even England?
This statement was reported last November in the excellent Roman Catholic periodical called the National Catholic Reporter. You might do very well to try to read it sometime.
meanwhile, I remain,
your worst servant
frere charles
She should convert to
She should convert to evangelicalism and then she'd have a better chance at nomination. I am sick of the kind of Catholic on the SCOTUS and don't want any more of them. How about an atheist or two?
Mr. Kmiec is surely joking
Mr. Kmiec is surely joking when he says this woman is a "moderate." That is like calling Karl Marx a free market proponent. We must pray -- very hard -- that this woman is defeated and NOT affirmed. She is NOT a supporter of the Constitution. That is precisely why Obama picked her. She is a touchy-feely, help-the-downtroden-regardless-of-what-the-law-says. Read in depth about her juducual career -- particularly her opinions being overturned 80% of the time by the SCOTUS. Neither her experience (other than her record as a judge -- which is abysmal) nor her faith should have any bearing on the choiceIf she is approved, Heaven help us all!
Dear self proclaimed Catholic
Dear self proclaimed Catholic Attorney,
Please help me to understand your testimony, which I quote in part here, and please tell us if you did not write thusly:
"She is a touchy-feely, help-the-downtroden-regardless-of-what-the-law-says. Read in depth about her juducual career -- particularly her opinions being overturned 80% of the time by the SCOTUS."
I would certainly read in depth or at any level "about her juducual career" if you would kindly define for us that apparent neologism, juducual, and please source it for us.
Also, kindly tell us your own standing as a Catholic (particularly in light of your clear and present abandonment of the downtrodden) and as an attorney? What is your field of expertise? What has been your own "juducual" career?
In what way has the good judge NOT supported the Constitution of the United States of America? Your unsourced statistic of "her opinions being overturned 80% of the time by the SCOTUS" perhaps tells us more about the present highly politicized SCOTUS, the despair of Justices Souter and O'Connor, than about the good and moderate Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
just wondering
your most downtrodden servant,
frere charles
Are you talking about the
Are you talking about the same person, Ms. Sotomayor, the woman appointed by Pres. Obama?
" . . . If she is approved,
" . . . If she is approved, Heaven help us all!"
Indeed. It's the end of civilization as we know it!
By what math are you thinking
By what math are you thinking Judge Sotomayor could possibly be defeated. Are you hallucinating? Can you count to 60? Unless she is part of a pro-life prayer group dedicated to praying for the overturn of Roe v. Wade on jurisdictional grounds, there is no possibility that she won't be confirmed as quickly as Harry Reid can manage it. Even if Senator Franken is not seated, the ladies from Maine are likely in the Judge Sonia column.
What exactly are you hoping for in such a defeat? The GOP was thrown out rather soundly over the last two elections because the people are tired of their politics of personal destruction. I know that Kennedy started it over Bork, but this tit for tat business has got to stop. It won't do the GOP any good at the ballot box. It might help a few obscure activists with their fundraising, but at what possible cost?
As someone asked Tailgunner Joe, has your side no sense of personal decency?
Fifty Five years ago this
Fifty Five years ago this June the ninth, Atty. Joe Welch of Hale and Dorr interrupted Sen. Joe McCarthy's attack on a junior lawyer in the firm which was representing the US Army against McCarthy's vengeful attacks for daring to move to draft his staff attorney according to the law, with these immortal words:
"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Whether in the halls of Cheney's Executive Office, Tom Delay's Congress, or Ratzinger's CDF, decency left the building long, long ago.
Read the fuller account at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001036.html
I would like to know Ms
I would like to know Ms Sonia's understanding of the use of death by the State as she would sit on the Nation's highest court.
Does she agree with Federal sanctioned murder called "The death penalty?"
Does she agree with Federal sanctioned murder called "War"
Does she agree with Federal sanctioned destruction of the environment? which will destroy all life on the planet?
Is she pro-life?
Or is she one issue anti-abortion?
Will we Roman Catholics (as individuals and as the collective People of God) fight for life after birth?
"President Obama did not
"President Obama did not select Judge Sotomayor for her judicial outcomes, but for her experience." LOL
Richard Warren and Rush are
Richard Warren and Rush are unhappy with the choice of Sotomayor..However She will be confirmed and serve very long.. May their unhappiness be fleeting... As a fellow New Yorker with a Bronx accent I suggest she answer the 'picky' senators questions with'IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS'
I had not heard of any
I had not heard of any unhappiness on Pastor Warren's part. As for making Rush unhappy - anything Obama can do that can accomplish that result over the short and long term is only icing on the cake.
The fact is ALL Men, as in
The fact is ALL Men, as in ALL Mankind, as in, ALL Human Beings, are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable Right to Life from the beginning. The Right to Life, trumps ALL Rights from the beginning.
Dear Nancy, Then let us
Dear Nancy,
Then let us please abolish all warfare, and the production, concealing, owning and use of all weapons of individual and of mass destruction. In fact our Pope has declared that under the present state of indiscriminate warfare, no just war is any longer possible.
Let us also abolish the death penalty, which the present most Catholic justices do not in their wisdom and morality find either cruel nor unusual.
Let us also therefore follow the teachings of the great encyclical Pacem in Terris and the numerous other papal encyclicals and USCCB letters which flow from that mighty fountainhead, to guarantee each person adequate food, clothing, health care and shelter, a decent job with decent hours and safe conditions and a LIVING wage.
Each of these is in fact the playing of the Right to Life trump card, as you mention, and essential to the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
your most humble servant
frere charles
Only people who impose their
Only people who impose their personal opinions rather than interpret the Constitution would outlaw capital punishment based upon the cruel and unusual punishment ban in the Constitution. The Constitution specifically refers the the death penalty in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, so it is not deemed cruel and unusual. Furthermore, Capital Punishment was practices immediately before and after ratification of the Constitution with no protest.
It's fine if you want to change the law, but that it would be immoral for our Catholic Justices to do so.
I'm glad to be of service! :)
Dear Jerry, How pleasant to
Dear Jerry,
How pleasant to correspond with you once more!
How do you know there was no protest of the government's murder of a fellow citizen? Do you also so facily excuse the guillotine after the French Revolution? The wholesale slaughter in the Irish civil war one hundred years ago? The executions which immediately followed the victory of the revolution in Cuba? (please note that each of these nations have abandoned the death penalty, as have all civilized nations on Earth, including some which refuse to have an extradition treaty with the USA due to the eager application of the death penalty)
Please remember last November when the head of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and PEace declared the death penalty homicide.
Jesus says there no longer can be an eye for an eye . . .
Why do you insist judges must enforce your view of morality ove the law and its precedent, and the US Constitution, in one pro-life case but not in this other? Is it small of me to seek consistency? Yet you consider "it would be immoral for our Catholic Justices to do so."
Are you truly saying the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual?
The USA is one of the very few (thank God) nations on earth with a death penalty still. Does this not seem unusual? It takes life. Does this not seem the ultimate cruelty, the ultimate arrogance?
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
How do you know there was no
How do you know there was no protest of the government's murder of a fellow citizen?
First, in the long teaching of the Catholic Church, an execution to punish murder is not murder. It is quite possible that there was some small fraction of the population in the U.S. at the writing of the Constitution who opposed capital punishment, but that has nothing to do with the Consitution.
Why do you insist judges must enforce your view of morality ove the law and its precedent, and the US Constitution, in one pro-life case but not in this other? Is it small of me to seek consistency?
I make no provision of "precedent" in my discussion. Liberals couldn't care less about law or "precedence" as they invent laws from the bench and then declare that whatever they rule upon is an inviolable "precendent." Roe v. Wade is clearly invented law not in the contitution and we are morally obligated to overturn it. Capital Punishment is not a matter of precedent, it is clearly allowed in the Constitution.
I'm not very impressed with a lot of the morality of other countries, but even if they are right about the death penalty we should work to change the law properly through the legislature rather than for me to violate the constitution and invent law if I became a Supreme Court Justice.
No, I do not think a quick painless death is cruel and unusual punishment. It is an appropriate and merciful punishment for people like William Bonin who tortured, raped and murdered many little boys. JP II calls for God's radical mercy and spare the lives of people like Bonin. Opposing capital punishment for Bonin is a matter of mercy, not a matter of justice.
The GREAT Catholic Sister
The GREAT Catholic Sister Helen Prejean has greater grasp not only of orthodox Roman Catholic moral theology, but also of US Constitutional law, than do you, my friend, and I trust her scholarly and prayerful writings and actions far more than your very frequent bloggings.
Tell me again Jerry, just for laughs, how the US Constitutions prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to imposing the death penalty. How is it not the height of the cruel and the unusual to murder someone? How does it not violate the Ten Commandments for that matter? How does it correspond with a pro-life position? Was the extra-judicial murder of Dr. Tiller also permitted under this loop-hole?
But I will not ask you to define what is cruel nor unusual, as you may believe it not cruel nor unusual to force someone to believe you are drowning them, blindfolded, tied to a plank, whose last sight was a deep and dirty tank of water, unless you bring them to the point of irreparable major organ failure . . .
Yup. For orthodox Catholic moral theology on this point as in so much else, I will turn not to a polemical blogger but to great Catholics like Sister Helen Prejean, and the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, despite your self-serving assumptions regarding how JPII would decide one particular case.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church of which I am a life long member declared last November, consistent with its long tradition, that the death penalty is homicide, as reported in this great NCR. Did the Christians feed others to the lions, or were they fed as cat food as punishment for being pacifist and refusing to serve in the Emperor's armies? Please read as well The Executed God on this point in moral theology.
First you do not put my passages in quotation marks, and then you do this one word in several variations: 'precedent' 'precedence' 'precendent' as if I had written it that way. Are you not familiar with the strength of precedents in deciding case law? You claim to be a Constitutional scholar; do you object to the use of precedent?
You suggest the use of state legislature to abolish the death penalty. Recently the legislature of my state provided our Catholic governor such a law for executive signature. Of course, to get by Republicans such as yourself, it was sold as a cost-cutting measure rather than a pro-life and life-saving issue, but we now join a growing number of anti-death penalty states. Deo gratias!
Sir, you write several absurdities and I see further discussion with you is fruitless. One of the most egregious is this: "I do not think a quick painless death is cruel and unusual punishment." This is not a consistent pro-life position.
You then shamelessly invoke the name of the late Pontiff John Paul II without any citation. Are you familiar with the quote in which he urges the abolition of the death penalty as our modern penal system makes public safety not a concern, and execution unecessary?
Were there any children in prison who would be endangered by this Bonin?
The Hebrew of the 10
The Hebrew of the 10 commandments is "Thou shall not murder" not "Thou shall not kill" I bet you knew that, but you don't care much about the truth. You also have no respect for the English language of when the term "murder" is appropriate.
Precedents are legitimate, but they do not hold the same stature of the source document as any person should know. I stand by my point that it is not our obligation to uphold Roe V. Wade which is a fabricated opinion not supported by the constituion.
You express zero concern for the killing of the unborn.
Of course you hyprocritcally worry that every thing is sourced when you don't do the same. Who promoted you God? I was reflecting the opinion of the JP II's biographer, George Weigal.
In regards to Bonin, he stayed in prison for 20 years. Experts on these homicidal maniacs say that people like Bonin self stimulate themselve getting orgasmic pleasure reliving the torture and murders. The families of these boys no longer have the pain of knowing that the murderer of there loved ones is still benefiting from his atrocities while they grieve.
Even though Capital Punishment is not cruel and unusual punishment at least as defined by the U.S. Constitution, I have no problem with trying to outlaw it. The issue is your hypocrisy of not giving a care about abortion, calling pro-abortionists great catholics, and making a big deal of the lesser issue of capital punishment.
Dear Jerry, I did not know
Dear Jerry,
I did not know that. My English Language Bibles (certainly an incompetent and ineffeicient tongue for any usage, particularly for the Verbum Dei) read:
"Thou shalt not kill."
without providing any loophole for state-sponsored killing, as in war or hangings. In any case, the Vatican's Pontifical Commission for Peace and Justice declared last November, as reported in the NCR, that the death penalty is homicide.
I find it unfortunate the deceptive and inefficient English language deceives you. I find it more clear in Spanish, French or Latin. I do not know Aramaic.
Ne tuez pas
No mataras
So does that include any animal life, including that which we eat? It certainly includes those in the waiting room, despite your criminally erroneous assertation that "You express zero concern for the killing of the unborn"
I share with Judge Sotomayor one hundred percent concern with those born to struggle to make a living wage in peace and human comfort, in justice. Do you?
Your homework: Read Pacem in Terris and Sacramentum caritatis, all of the way through the pure Liberation Theology final third.
I had trouble placing your reference to George Weigal. Do you mean George Weigel, autor of the self-serving 1999 Witness to Hope? I advise you check, for example, the cover of the "Letters to a Young Catholic: Art of Mentoring" in which the proper spelling of his name looms especially large.
Your final two paragraphs are entirely incomprehensible to me. Forgive me my limited linguistic skills, please.
your worst servant
frere charles
You, which is normal for the
You, which is normal for the left, appear to have extreme moral confusion in that you do not have the clarity to differentiate the state's capital punishment of criminal that rapes, tortures and kills a little girl from state sponsored murder of thousands of political opponents.
I applaud this if it is
I applaud this if it is "normal for the left" as it is certainly normal for the Commandment of God listed in the Decalogue (which you would by the way be hard put to find listed in that way in any canonical book of the Holy Bible) to declare an absolute prohibition on killing:
"Thou shalt not kill."
This includes of course the death penalty and war which is that to which I believe your tortured prosody refers.
Why does killing hold such great appeal to you as to seek excuses for it?
Dude, Thou shalt not kill. God said it; I believe it. Get over it!
your poorest servant
frere charles
The Declaration of
The Declaration of Independence is not considered law for the purpose of constitutional interpretation. The 14th Amendment is as regards to the issue you opaquely raise. I would suspect that Judge Sotomayor knows that and frankly, it doesn't matter if Nancy does - although accepting that Roe is rightly decided under the plain language of the Constition would allow for the abandonment of a losing strategy (not even Roberts and Alito favor overturning Roe on procedural grounds- like Scalia - or in rewriting the 14th Amendment from the bench - like Thomas). Judge Sotomayor, as a moderate liberal, might just be the 6th vote to allow Congress to pick a different start to legal recognition of the unborn under their power to enforce the 14th Amendment (see section 5). She might also be that elusive vote to deny certeorari to anyone challenging such an act, since a Cert petition takes 4 votes. If Congress moves the start of life to 30 weeks, or even 13 weeks (more likely would be 24 weeks) and the appeals court does not strike it down, the matter is settled without the public spectacle of a SCOTUS case. Of course, my stating that may let the cat out of the bag and cause the left to question her on the topic, which would lead to the nomination of Judge Wood, who would have no qualms in both granting Cert and in voting not to allow anything short of abortion on demand.
In other words, the quicker this nomination goes through the better. Stop this one, and you will get one that you will consider much worse.
Post new comment