# Justice Roberts: Do we need ANOTHER hardcore Catholic on the Supreme Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324 "2005-08-02T17:06:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/141 "2005-08-06T23:57:03Z")
Since post #128, (where **Evil Captor** noted that real life was keeping him busy), EC has already managed to post **FIVE** times without the promised “…some quotes and explanations soon”. Put up, shut up or head over to IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/142 "2005-08-07T03:21:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I did not claim that the thread was “rather bigoted” because you “ask[ed]if the guy’s Catholicism could be a problem.” I noted that it was a rather bigoted thread because you opened you OP with the same bigoted rhetoric that was used to attack Al Smith in 1928 was was used, again, (with less success) to attack John Kennedy in 1960. I’m not up on that rhetoric. Maybe it’s a case of similar concerns leading to similar phrasing. What I’ve read on the history of the Catholic Church in America indicates that their leaders have ALWAYS been a censorious bunch, ACTIVELY opposed to birth control. And y’know, THAT would be OK with me, if Catholic leaders would say, “We oppose birth control, and we oppose any kind of sexual content in the media, but we ONLY think Catholics need to be governed by these rules,” I’d be cool with it. But they’ve ALWAYS been very active in trying to enforce these rules over all of the American public. And that bugs me. I’ll bet it bugged people in 1928 and in 1960. Maybe if Catholic leaders weren’t so inclined to impose their morality on EVERYONE, people would be whole lot less inclined to view them with suspicion. [The Legion of Decency would be an example of what I’m talking about.](http://www.answers.com/topic/national-legion-of-decency) [Here’s a more general piece … note reference to Catholic censors’ use of ant-Semitism to promote their views.](http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9701/reviews/sisk.html) [By the late 1930s, the (Catholic) Church hierarchy controlled the content of American movies."](http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archived/Marjorie%20Heins.htm) [Ancient history, you say? Perhaps some of you remember conservative Catholic and convicted felon Charles Keating, the founder of Citizens for Decent Literature and Citizens for Decency through Law, two censorship groups, and the chairman of Nixon’s Commission on Pornography.](http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/8911/name.html) I gotta tell you TomnDebb, this kinda shit makes people nervous. It SHOULD make people nervous. It makes me nervous. And so long as Catholic groups keep trying to impose their morality on everyone else, people are gonna be suspicious of Catholics generally. Calling me a bigot will not change this in any way. The fundamentalist Christian protestant groups joining the Catholics in this regard is a relatively new phenomenon, brought on by their shared interest in fighting abortion. There have always been backward Protestants favoring censorship, but there’s no doubt Catholics lead the charge here. > [@](#): > > In particular, you posted the following which is such a distortion of Catholic practice as to have been written by Ian Paisley or Bob Jones:This is not to say that the statement is a clear lie, but it is the sort of distortion that has been used by the extreme Religious Right for years to attack Catholics–particularly by some Protestant groups attacking Catholic politicians in the U.S. Look, TomnDebb, it’s not doing your side of the debate any good to try to frame me in this way. I could give a shit about those guys … My readings on the history of censorship have shown that Catholic groups have repeatedly been in the lead when censorship is attempted. My formative years in politics have been marked with news of conflict with Catholic groups over abortion, birth control, freedom of speech on sexual issues, and with [news of Catholic bishops hiding evidence of Catholic priests raping kids, apparently with then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s connivance](http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0426.htm) and news of [Catholic orphanages and schools which operated as slave labor camps right through to the 1990s.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050401.html) I gotta tell you, TomnDebb, thanks to all these horror stories, when I hear the word “Catholic” the feeling I get is not a good one. Most of the really nasty shit that the Catholic leadership has done, has been done to Catholics, but I think you can see why I have NO desire to see Catholic influence extended to a wider segment of society. > [@](#): > > You continue to distort your “evidence” when you cite some nutcase trying to “sue” for Senator Kerry’s excommunication while ignoring the well-publicized fact that the [Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry’s excommunication](http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm). You made much of the fact that a handful of bishops suggested the Kerry be denied communion, ignoring the fact that the bishops presiding over the rest of the 220 Catholic diocese in the U.S. made no similar claims and that the the actual declaration from the National Council of Catholic Bishops regarding the election addresses many different issues, but makes no statement supporting Bishop Bruskewitz or his like-minded episcopal brethren. I see. When a Catholic Bishop says something you disagree with, he’s a “nutcase.” What say you to the fact that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was the one who attempted to get the bishops to deny communion to Kerry? Isolated nutcase? (See next link.) > [@](#): > > In order to post your OP, you have to begin with a false premise regarding Catholicism and American Catholics–a false premise that has been addressed and debunked on this board in the past. Had it truly been a _question_, I would not view it as bigoted, _per se_. However, as a rhetorical question based on a declaration couched in the language of past bigots, proceeding from a foundation of long-disproven error, I do tend to view it as bigoted. What error? What do I care if the Pope is the one calling for excommunication, or if it’s a bishop? I admitted earlier there’s no evidence that the Pope has done any excommunicating of judges or politicians or threats thereto, but you know what? When he was a Cardinal, [Ratzinger DID call on bishops to refuse communion to any politician supporting abortion rights, with an indirect but obvious reference to John Kerry.](http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/10526) I gotta tell ya, TomnDebb, looks like you’re playing the old game of trying to defuse the substance of my concerns by attacking the way I voiced them. > [@](#): > > In order to demonstrate that your OP has any basis in reality, you should be able to point to some event in history in which > > - a Catholic politician in the U.S. was ordered to make a particular judgment (and was punished by the church if he failed) > - the excommunication of Justices Brennan and/or Kennedy > - points in the opinions of Justices Scalia or Thomas that rely on arguments from the _Summa Theologica_ or a papal bull or encyclical instead of precedent in case law or Constitutional law > - or some similar damning event. yeah, if I was the “puppet or Rome” monkey you think I am. Stop trying to fit me into the familiar old frame of Paisley and Roberts. I’m not from the religious right. I’m a liberal who’s not liking the new, conservative face of the Catholic Church. I look at Roberts and I wonder … is this guy’s “devoutness” real religious feeling, or just shared values with the political types in the Church, a group which now clearly includes the current Pope. ---
**Author:** ![zacchaeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@zacchaeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zacchaeus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/143 "2005-08-07T04:05:26Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > 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. Apparently, Mr. Roberts has the (potential) admiration of the gay community. He apparently argued a case as Law Clerk, before the U.S. Supreme Court and won a favor for the Gay Rights argument. (I caught a blurb on the evening news about it) I am preparing for him to take his place on the Court, whether we like it or not. If we get strong arguments in front of him he may favor the “MARIJUANA USER” and pave the way for some much needed change. Does anyone know if Chief Renhquist smokes? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/144 "2005-08-07T04:15:59Z")
> [@zacchaeus](#): > > He apparently argued a case as Law Clerk, before the U.S. Supreme Court and won a favor for the Gay Rights argument. (I caught a blurb on the evening news about it) Roberts gave advice on the case, but did not argue the case in court. And he wasn’t a law clerk then. [More here](http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-roberts4aug04,1,2991992.story). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/145 "2005-08-07T06:02:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Stop trying to fit me into the familiar old frame of Paisley and Roberts. I didn’t. You did. Read the exact text of your false claim in the OP that you have neither retracted nor substantiated. If you do not want to be associated with old time Catholic bashers, then don’t use their false arguments. In your effort to show that the pope controls all the Catholics in America, you provide links to several stories that indicate that among a number of Catholic _and Protestant_ efforts to impose censorship on the movie industry, the Catholic group (which, according to your first source, was originally a mutli-faith organization) happened to win out because the Protestant picked to head up the commission liked the Catholic preparation, best. You then ignore the fact that this terrible censorship lasted fewer than 20 years, _was opposed by some prominent Catholics_, and was limited to a single medium of entertainment, not a general attack on free speech. (The legion lasted a lot longer, beginning with its multi-faith roots, but its power over Hollywood only took shape after 1934 and was broken by 1952, according to your sources.) Why you think that bringing up Charles Keating is relevant, I am not sure. He is a sideline player who was not carrying out the “orders” of the Vatican (which was your original thesis to oppose Judge Roberts). So, we have a wide group of people of all faiths who object to sexuality, violence, and the glorification of evil with the most prominent members being Protestants and (Protestant dominated) government agencies from just after 1900 to 1934. Then one of those groups, doing nothing different than any of the other groups, and acting on their own initiative (not following the Vatican), happens to provide an organizing force that dominates that broad movement for 18 years, (while being criticized by others of the same denomination), then falls back into being little better than a provincial voice for a single sect, finally drying up and being dissolved by the very organization that you fear is out to dominate the country. > [@](#): > > I see. When a Catholic Bishop says something you disagree with, he’s a “nutcase.” I did not call any bishop a nutcase. You are now distorting even what I have said. The loon who “sued” to have Kerry excommunicated is a nutcase–and he is not a bishop. I am saddened by your link to the Blumenthal op-ed piece. Not for Blumenthal’s opinions, but for his distortion of the letter that Ratzinger actually sent to the American bishops, the sort of distortion that people who are inclined to see evil where they want to will uncritically accept as true. Here is the text of the [actual letter](http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm). Note it is false to accuse Kerry of “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,” so the letter was not directed at him, although some scattered pastors may have taken it upon themselves to treat it that way. You also need to do some further research about Ratzinger and the pedophilia issue. Initially, he believed that it was a media issue being trumpeted to attack the Church. He should be legitimately castigated for that. However, in order to determine what had actually happened, he ordered that all the records be sent to the Vatican for review. Once he began to read the actual statements and reports, he came to the conclusion that the pedophilia issue was real and he began taking steps to address it. Judge Anne Burke and former publisher William Burleigh, both members of the lay review board established to investigate the pedophilia issue in the American church met with then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004. They each said that he was open to all of their comments and that he engaged in frank discussions with them on the topic. Note that pretty much all the stories linking Ratzinger to a cover-up continue to use his 1999 - 2001 remarks, when he did see the matter as one of trumped up charges, and generally ignore his actions (such as working with the U.S. bishops to ensure that it was _easier_ under canon law to remove a priest suspected of such crimes) in the intervening years. In addition, under Cardinal Ratzinger’s leadership, the [Vatican prosecutor reporting to Ratzinger called for end to statutes of limitations in abuse cases](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_14_41/ai_n9772172). Now, as I have already noted, had you simply challenged Roberts as a representative of a philosophy that you oppose, I’d have stayed out of this thread. It was your initial false claim, already cited earlier, which you persist in pretending has some truth to it, despite an utter lack of evidence, that has brought me into this thread. Waving the Legion of Decency with its Hay connections, alluding to misquoted comments from Cardinal Ratzinger, and making irrelevant allusions to Charles Keating does nothing to support your claim that the pope is holding the puppet strings of any Catholic politicians or jurists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324.md?page=7)