Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Stomach In A Bowl | Main | A Disheartening News Story »

November 09, 2006

Comments

servitium dulce

St. Thomas More, pray for the Supreme Court Justices, pray for us!
Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for them, pray for us!

Thank you for this timely post, Mr. Akin.

Watch these: Called By God, Unto The Least.

Esperanto Christopher

Ave Maria. Bush may still get in one and maybe two more appointments before he's done. Ginsberg has known health problems- some said she was in worse shape than Rehnquist. Also, John Paul Stevens is 86. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was at 91 the oldest Justice ever.

Beyond that, one sees the importance of 2008, but in the interim, with a possible Democratic majority in the Senate, Bush nominees will have no free ride. Let's hope for a court with 6 rock-solid pro-lifers, all fairly young by SCOTUS standards.

Christine

There is a rumor that Darth Stephens will be stepping down soon.

Let's pray that we get enough pro-lifers on the Court to not only ban partial birth abortion, but to overturn Roe v Wade entirely.

tim

kennedy will flip his vote to the pro-death side should it be necessary to maintain the status quo. just my prediction. what is the opposite of profiles in courage?

Kasia

Tim,

I think it's "The Fleeing Backs of Cowards"...

Publius

There is a rumor that Darth Stephens will be stepping down soon.

The rumor that he is ill and soon to step down started in the run-up to the election so it isn't to be believed. It's entirely possible it was planted by an unscrupulous Republican operative to get Republicans to the polls.

That said, I do expect Stevens to retire at the end of June. Why? Because now is the best time to assure a "moderate" replacement. The Senate is lost to the GOP now and 2008 is a great unknown. If he tries to wait out Bush, the GOP might retain the White House and gain an extra Senate seat or two.

Thomas A. Gill

Let's hope the faithful Catholic Supreme Court justces continue to have an influence on Justice Kennedy. Look at Kennedy's recent order on the Mt Soledad cross in San Diego available at the Thomas More Law Center website:

http://www.thomasmore.org/

Esau

Yesterday's news segment was terribly disheartening which featured the abortion protests revolving around the supreme court case in progress.

If it wasn't bad enough that the Pro-Choice movement advocates the countless murders of innocents, in addition to this, their devious manipulation of twisting the young people's minds by the use of euphemism to disguise this heinous act (such as using the label "pro-choice" instead of the more apt label "pro-murder") has become for them an effective weapon, which was made evident in the news clip I caught last nite.

Where apparently the Priests-for-Life protestors were, of course, there too were the Pro-Choicers.

Yet, what was sad to see was a young Pro-Choice person (she seemed as if in her teens) telling the Pro-Life folks in a pleading voice that "We are not for Abortion, we are for choice!" -- almost as if she was trying to convince herself of this as well

Clearly, the Pro-Choice folks have successfully done its terrible work of not only promoting the murder of the unborn but also by underhandedly brainwashing some of our young, convincing them that it's not murder that they're advocating, it's actually the choice of the individual!

raj

One point of concern that has been raised is that the apparent Good Side of the Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) could strike down the Federal ban on Commerce Clause grounds. Hopefully, that's just more fanciful academic speculation than anything else.

If Stevens retires in the next two years, I fully expect the President to nominate a Harriet Miers/David Souter-like judicial candidate (i.e., someone who might be a judicial conservative, but probably won't be once on the Court). This time, though, without the leverage of a GOP majority in the Senate to prevent a "Borking," there won't be anything that can be done to stop this sort of nomination from going all the way through to confirmation. I'm therefore hoping there won't be anymore vacancies on the SCOTUS until the GOP takes control of both the presidency and Senate.

Publius

One point of concern that has been raised is that the apparent Good Side of the Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) could strike down the Federal ban on Commerce Clause grounds.

Ed Whelan addressed this concern at Bench Memos yesterday:

"(Let me preempt further e-mails questioning why Scalia shouldn’t find the federal act beyond Congress’s power: The act itself includes a jurisdictional element that limits its application to violations that are in or affect interstate commerce. There may well be as-applied challenges to the scope of the act, but there is no reason to regard it as facially beyond Congress’s power. In addition, plaintiffs, eager to preserve the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, deliberately waived any argument based on lack of congressional power.)"

Esau

In one Christian website, they had this to say about Alito way back when:

Now that Samuel Alito has been confirmed to the supreme Court, I have received numerous endorsements, praises and letters of applause from leading conservative organizations who are riding high on his appointment to the supreme Court as a pro-life victory... But is it really? Or have these groups been taken for a ride?
As for me, I have declined to take a seat on the

As for me, I have declined to take a seat on the Alito bandwagon, and here are just a few reasons why:

On November 15, 2005, it was reported in the Associated Press article "Alito Downplays 1985 Abortion Statement" that when Sen. Dianne Feinstein had questioned Judge Alito about a document in which he stated to the Reagan administration that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" he evasively replied "I was an advocate seeking a job...I'm now a judge...I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my personal views..." His response is neither decisive nor forthright, but reeks of cowardice. (excerpt)

The following comment was made in response:

I hear your concern. It is quite possible that Judge Alito was evasive so that he could get confirmed. Now that he is in a position to change laws regarding abortion he may feel more free to do that. In the other cases he was just applying the law that was established, which unfortunatley are very bad laws. We must wait and see. Let's pray for him and the others to do the right thing in the partial birth abortion case that is coming up in October.

Let's just pray the new folks, Alito and Roberts, come through for us and that they do not fail in the very responsibility that was entrusted to them by Bush in this regard for the very purpose set out for them, that is, to reverse the tide of Roe v Wade.

Kasia

"Clearly, the Pro-Choice folks have successfully done its terrible work of not only promoting the murder of the unborn but also by underhandedly brainwashing some of our young, convincing them that it's not murder that they're advocating, it's actually the choice of the individual!"

Esau, you've not only hit the nail on the head, you've driven it clear through the board. I was raised militantly "pro-choice" and that is *exactly* how it was always represented to me (and how I represented it to others). "We don't advocate abortion; we advocate CHOICE."

That sounds good, right? I mean, choice - who can argue with that? Slogans like "My body, my choice," "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" and my personal 'favorite' "Keep your rosaries off of my ovaries" all play off the not-so-subtle message that pro-lifers are just big bad religio-fascist bullies who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant and impose their will on others.

What it took to turn me pro-life was the clear realization that that was a baby, it was a life, and that therefore no one has the prerogative to CHOOSE to end it. The sad thing is that most "pro-choicers" have steeled themselves against accepting that. I'm not sure how one breaks through, apart from loving, dogged persistence.

ajesquire

Ohh, I get it, Darth Souter. Like Darth Vader. Cause Darth Vader was bad, and wore black, and had a cool voice.

That's high brow. James.

Esau

Esau, you've not only hit the nail on the head, you've driven it clear through the board. I was raised militantly "pro-choice" and that is *exactly* how it was always represented to me (and how I represented it to others). "We don't advocate abortion; we advocate CHOICE."

Thanks Kasia!

Don't feel so bad though because there are probably a majority of folks out there who are also in your shoes.


The sad thing is that most "pro-choicers" have steeled themselves against accepting that.

This all stems from the deceptive campaign waged by "Pro-Choice". Sad to say, there are folks who become Pro-Choice, especially perhaps, most of all, young would-be mothers (and those who particularly feel some affinity for them since they can see themselves in the same situation as these folks are in), who were hit by this deception at such an impressionable young age, that it becomes all the more difficult to convince them of the actual "pro-murder" of innocents that "Pro-Choice" actually espouses.

Add to that, these would-be mothers, in addition, need to convince themselves of the argument for "Pro-Choice" because of the abortion they're to commit (or have committed) and cannot even consider facing the guilt that would ensue otherwise if they were to even entertain the possibility that it is, in fact, murder; that what they're about to do (or have done) was murder an innocent baby -- not just any baby, but theirs; that the "Pro-Choice" movement is actually a movement that has caused and will cause the actual deaths of thousands of innocents out there. It's almost too much for that person's conscience to handle, given her circumstances.

Mary

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

The answer to that, is "You are not allow to do to that child anything you please; we can take the child away and punish if you try. Therefore, we don't trust you with a child."

Dano

I, too, am skeptical about Roberts and Alito being solid pro-life voters. They will certainly be inclined to lean that way, but other considerations may still tip them over the other way- most significantly, that of adherence to precedent, but others as well.

On the other hand, we have to remember the marked tendancy of SC justices to "drift" over the years. Who knows what might happen to Alito and Robers?

Kennedy is a wild card, and I can definitely see him taking a firm pro-life vote- or a firm pro-choice vote, depending on the circumstances. He's clearly had some second thoughts about abortion, but he doesn't seem willing to overturn Roe. On the other hand, he tends to get angry when other branches infringe on what he sees as SCOTUS territory, and he bristles at certain actions by congress and the states- possibly enough to drastically swing his position.

Esau

Kennedy is a wild card, and I can definitely see him taking a firm pro-life vote- or a firm pro-choice vote, depending on the circumstances.

I think that might be why (now this is just a guess) that Jimmy referred to him as "Darth Kennedy", but that though he may tip to either side, there might be yet the possibility that, like in Jedi, he might be turned to the "Light" side; that is, vote pro-life!

About Roberts and Alito, let's just hope and pray they're worth their salt as Catholics unlike other so-called Catholics in our government!

Barefoot & Pregnant

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

First time I saw that one at a grocery store, I thought, "Adoption."

Let me take my shoes off so I can be...

Kasia

I like the responses to the "If you can't trust me with a choice..." slogan. I've considered carrying a stash of responses to stick under their windshield wipers, but discarded the idea for two reasons. One, I can't anticipate every bumper sticker I might see. Two, odds are they won't even read it, and if they do it's bloody unlikely to change their minds; personal interaction is much more likely to be effective, in my experience. Still tempting...

Jonathan Prejean

Justice Kennedy spoke at my law school class reunion (my fifth, his forty-fifth). I think he just has too much faith in the innate goodness of man. He thinks that dialogue is the right approach to solving any problem, and he doesn't seem to have any appreciation for what can drive people even to monstrous evil by consensus, not from failure or dialogue, but from massive capitulation to selfish and evil impulses. Socratic dialogue ultimately leads nowhere without an ultimate standard for good and evil, and there are some respects that only the Gospel is sufficient. Justice Kennedy advocates the sort of "compassion" that does nothing in the face of evil on the chance that the evildoer might be brought to understanding, but we also have an obligation to defend the innocent regardless of whether the evildoer can be somehow made to understand that he is wrong. In the cases where moral clarity is demanded, particularly where reason and natural law are prone to be sacrificed by the selfish at the expense of the innocent, we have to proclaim the reality of sin and the need for a Savior. And, alas for Justice Kennedy's attempt to carve out an autonomous realm of jurisprudence, there is sin even there.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31