We already have three Catholics on the Supreme Court: Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.
Two of those Catholics, Scalia and Thomas, are arguably part of the Troglodyte Right. They never saw a civil right they liked. Affirmative action? Dispensable. Right to privacy? Not in THEIR Constitution. Women’s right to … anything? Not a priority.
Now we have this Roberts guy coming along. He’s supposed to be a devout Catholic, too. And a conservative. Very much a guy in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. What’s he going to do on abortion? On birth control issues? On freedom of speech issues? (The Catholic Church has historically opposed freedom of speech in America.) The Pope has already said sacrements should be withheld from Catholic politicians supporting abortion rights.
Now, before you start calling me a bigot, be aware that the Catholic Church has always claimed the right to tell its members what’s moral and what’s not – the line comes directly from God to the Pope – and to excommuicate them if they don’t conform. The Catholic Church is NOT like other religions, which put a much higher premium on the individual, who is presumed to have the ability to communicate directly with God through prayer. The Catholic Church is a hierarchy, and it’s fair to ask of any devout Catholic at the highest level of government … can you serve two masters when they conflict? Which master gets the upper hand in that situation?
I think Roberts should be asked some VERY pointed questions along those lines in his confirmation hearings. The Church has already been revealed to consider itself above the law in the child abuse scandals, shifting their peddo-preists around and finally whisking Bernard Law off to Vatican City when it looked like he might get nailed as the enabler he was.
Do we want these guys running the highest court in the land? Because with four of them on the bench, they just about will be.
Uhm, what about flag buring? Scalia voted to strike down laws making flag buring unconstitutional, and althought Thomas wasn’t on the court to vote on those cases, there is no doubt he would have sided with Scalia. Thomas also voted for the right of states to allow the use of medicinal marijuana (although Scalia didn’t). “The lady doth paint with a broad brush to much.” What about the “public use” clause of the US constitution? Which justices were more on the side of the people’s rights in that case? You are confusing a textualist approach to the constitution with cultural conservatism.
But I think the Republicans would be more than happy for the Democrats to make an issue of Roberts’ religion. Go ahead, make their day!
Well, and there are two Jews on the Court, and we know that Jews are part of the International Zionist cabal, so is that really a good idea?
In all seriousness, I think you are being bigoted here. It’s possible, and even probable, that a Catholic will be influenced in his politics by his Catholic beliefs, but it’s equally probable that Rehnquist is influenced by his Lutheran beliefs. And American Catholics don’t differ significantly politically than non-Catholics, except by being slightly more likely to be Democrats and liberals.
Here’s a list of all the present and past Catholic justices. Is there some particular thing you’ve noticed in common in their jurisprudence or decisions?
Roger Taney
Edward White
Joseph McKenna
Pierce Butler
Frank Murphy
Sherman Minton
William Brennan
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
I would be happy to make the Republicans’ day, so long as in doing so I avoided supporting a candidate who would be a disaster for the U.S. I am sure that on occasion Scalia has voted for things that are periperhal to Catholic doctrine, but not central to it. Not mortal sins, as it were. Catholic opposition to freedom of speech has always been in the areas of sex and birth control rather than flag burining. I’m not sure WHERE the Catholic Church stands on the issue of medical marijuana, if anywhere, so I’m not sure what the point cited there is? Similarly, the “public use” clause. What part of Catholic doctrine is that? Enlighten me.
Is the debate only centered on Catholicism? Then perhaps you should ask a mod to strike out the part of the OP that I was responding to, as that had nothing to do with Catholicism:
The fact that they are Catholics is unrelated to their views on civil rights. You stuck “Catholic” in there, but it could have been “men with dark hair” for all the relavence it had to never seeing a civil right they liked.
I realize how this sounds, but I think at a certain point we can say “that’s enough, let’s get some more diversity on the court” without being bigoted.
The point here is that you have cherry-picked Catholic teachings and decontextualized them in order to create a bogus common ground between a bunch of justices whose decisions aren’t what you’d like them to be.
The point here is that you don’t know anything about Catholic doctrine except a tiny bit that has to do with those decisions.
The point here is that you don’t like their conservatism and are trying to fault their religion when you should be faulting their politics.
So if you’re not sure where the Church stands on issues of freedom, you shouldn’t make claims that Catholics will use their religion and power to stifle freedom.
Irrelevant. We’s talking about Cathoiic jurists here.
If you’re going to seriously accuse me of bigotry, you’re going to have to come up with something a LOT less feeble than that for a rationale. I didn’t say that Roberts would be INFLUENCED by his beliefs, I said that the way the Catholic Church is structured means that his duty to God as he sees it coulc come in direct conflict with his duty as an interpreter of the Constitution. Lutherans and such do not have this problem, becuase their church isn’t hierarchical in the way that Catholicism is.
And it’s true that many American Catholics act in ways that are in conflict with Church doctrine – IIRC, Catholic women have been some of the biggest clients of abortion service providers. But Roberts is supposed to be a “devout” choir-boy kinda guy. Probably just the sort who would feel the kind of conflict I allude to most.
Frankly, I seriously think you’re using an accusation of bigotry as a cheap, sleazy, ugly rhetorical device here. You want to try to score points by it, whether you can muster any rationale for it or not. It’s a seriously ad hominem kinda thing to do.
**Here’s a list of all the present and past Catholic justices.
[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant, unless you can demonstrte that four of them sat on the Court at the same time.
Irrelevant. We’s talking about Cathoiic jurists here.
If you’re going to seriously accuse me of bigotry, you’re going to have to come up with something a LOT less feeble than that for a rationale. I didn’t say that Roberts would be INFLUENCED by his beliefs, I said that the way the Catholic Church is structured means that his duty to God as he sees it coulc come in direct conflict with his duty as an interpreter of the Constitution. Lutherans and such do not have this problem, becuase their church isn’t hierarchical in the way that Catholicism is.
And it’s true that many American Catholics act in ways that are in conflict with Church doctrine – IIRC, Catholic women have been some of the biggest clients of abortion service providers. But Roberts is supposed to be a “devout” choir-boy kinda guy. Probably just the sort who would feel the kind of conflict I allude to most.
Frankly, I seriously think you’re using an accusation of bigotry as a cheap, sleazy, ugly rhetorical device here. You want to try to score points by it, whether you can muster any rationale for it or not. It’s a seriously ad hominem kinda thing to do.
Irrelevant, unless you can demonstrte that four of them sat on the Court at the same time.
Kerry wasn’t exactly a doctrinaire Catholic. Given his stand on most issues, I don’t think it’s reasonable to think he’d allow the Pope to cow him into taking a stand agaisnt, say, birth control.
If you have information that Roberts is not that inclined to take Catholic teachings into account when making his decisions, that would do much to allay my concerns about him.
Just to hazard a guess, maybe it’s because Kerry would only be in office for eight years, tops; barring unforseen events, Roberts would be on the bench for 20+ years.
And besides, nothing wrong with Catholics (or folks of any other faith) in government, as long as they remember that the US of A isn’t a nation ruled by Catholicism (or any other faith).
I disagree; I think “bigot” is a perfectly applicable term. Happy Scrappy Hero Pup pretty much nailed it in his post.
That doesn’t make ANY sense at all–are their Catholic Powers only unleashed when four sit on the bench at the same time? If not, the behaviour of past Catholic justices is VERY relevant.
Seems to me you’re not concerned about Roberts’ Catholicity - you’re concerned because he may have different opinions than you do on issues of the day.
I hope that’s your concern, in any event, because “He’s a Catholic, and we already have three” is not a Constitutionally valid objection.
Wow. Now *there’s * a lot of hard-and-fast proof of an imminent takeover. :dubious:
You’re expressing your opinions of Catholicism and your speculations about the character of one man and his relationship to his Church, and then denying the same privilege to others.
If you’re going to say, “I think Roberts will be a poor jurist because of this list of beliefs that I think Catholics find important,” you can’t very well get up in arms because someone says “Well, I don’t.”
One might think you’d have investigated this a bit more thoroughly before you expressed such a strong opinion on a man you don’t really know at all.
