Justice Roberts: Do we need ANOTHER hardcore Catholic on the Supreme Court?

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@Evil Captor

Abortion? Birth Control? Censorship? These are currently pretty strong Catholic positions on issues currently. If you want to go back to the 1800s, join Bricker there, I’m sure you’ll have fun.

No, these are concepts.
Displaying your knowledge of:

1. How the Catholic Church feels about these concepts
   and
2. How that feeling is explicitly reflected in the identical decisions of your potential bloc of Catholic jurists

would begin to make your point about how having four Catholic SC justices would represent a threat to… well, whatever it is you think will be threatened.
I am almost entirely sure that, even if you do your research, which you have shown no propensity to do, you will not come up with any significant instances where those four justices made identical (or even similar) decisions on any of the concepts you listed above that can be traced to their religion and/or the influence of the Vatican.

But I welcome you to try.

Oh, and the bashing of other posters doesn’t help your cause any.

[Miller]

@Evil Captor

I’ve said this twice, I’ll say it a third time, hopefully you will hear me this time:

I heard you the first two times. I’m still waiting for you to show that what you’re saying has any basis in reality.

Catholicism is a hierarchical religion. According to Catholic doctrine, the preists, etc. intercede between God and the individual Catholic. In other religions, there’s a direct relationship between God and the individual. So no one can be excommunicated for having political opinions that vary from the faithful’s. A rabbi’s ruling, or a Protestant minster’s judgement, are really just opinions, however respected that opinion might be. Not so Catholicism.

Provide, if you would be so kind, a list of judges and politicians who have been excommunicated, denied communion, or otherwise sanctioned by the Church for acting in the political arena in a way contrary to the dictates of the Pope.

So a politician or a judge can say, 'I understand your concerns rabbi, but in my conversations wthh God on this issue, we see things differently. Sorry. And that’s it. But a preist says, “Your opinion may be what it is, but this opinion comes from Rome, and you can’t disagree with it and be a Catholic.”

Whole different story, you see?

No, I don’t see, because you haven’t shown any compelling reason why a Catholic cannot say exactly the same thing. Catholics in the US are overwhelmingly more liberal than the rest of the Church. If so many can follow their own consciences instead of orders from Rome (including, let us remember, every single Catholic currently sitting on the Supreme Court) why are you so certain that Roberts will not be able to do the same? Further, why are you so convinced that Roberts’ conservatism is a product of his faith, and not the result of genuinely held convictions that happen to coincide with the teachings of his Church? Lastly, considering who was responsible for nominating him, why does his Catholicism matter in the slightest, as Bush was dead certain to nominate someone with views similar to his regardless of his religion? If Roberts had identical views, but was a devout Hindu, would you be worried about Calcutta exerting undue influence on the US Supreme Court?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Evil Captor

Abortion? Birth Control? Censorship? These are currently pretty strong Catholic positions on issues currently. If you want to go back to the 1800s, join Bricker there, I’m sure you’ll have fun.

Ok, (and btw, the only justice I mentioned who joined the court in the 1800s was Justice White, and that was 1894) so what about William Brennan, who voted for abortion, for birth control, and against censorship.

Or for that matter, what about Justice Murphy, who, while he was too early for the abortion and birth control decisions, dissented against the internment of Japanese Americans, and whose rulings generally opposed censorship and supported civil rights.

In short, do you know what you’re talking about, or are you just making all this up?

[boret]

From the mouth of Roberts himself:

The faith of John Roberts

The exchange occurred during one of Roberts’ informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person’s faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

What can be surmised from that answer?

If his legal reasoning leads him to a conclusion in keeping with Catholic moral teaching, he will not recuse himself?

Is that what he’s saying?

Point is, how would we determine the distinction? How likely is it that his background will not affect his legal (or secular) reasoning?

[SemperFi]

@boret

Point is, how would we determine the distinction? How likely is it that his background will not affect his legal (or secular) reasoning?

And who is to say that the dozen or so Jewish Senators’ backgrounds will not affect their reasoning or loyalty to the U.S. when issues of national sovereignty or foreign policy come up and Likud tells them they need to vote in a way contrary to the U.S.'s interests?

No one would like that question (even though we’ve demonstrated that Jews are even more numerically “overrepresented” on the Supreme Court and in Congress than Catholics could ever be (American Jews), and even though the possibility of split loyalties to Israel and the U.S. isn’t objectively more ridiculous than the possibility of split allegience to the Constitution and the Vatican (and it is only you who assure us that the Constitution is incompatible with Vatican policy). Most here would argue, “We assume Jewish judges and elected representatives will discharge their duties faithfully and loyally, without being swayed by allegience to Israel, because they take an oath to do so, and wouldn’t do so if they couldn’t live by that oath.” Presumably a Jewish official could take that oath without really meaning it or being loyal to it, or while keeping his fingers crossed, knowing that he would sell-out his U.S. duties if he got orders from the mothership. So could John Roberts or a Catholic official. An argument based on the premise that officials will routinely abuse their oath is a fine argument to make, in the abstract; I’m just not sure, again, why this is or would be a problem specific to the Mary-worshipping Roman whores of Babylon.

I’d really like to hear the OP’s argument for why his concerns with the “unique” risk of Catholics taking orders from the Vatican are any different, in kind, from the risks of a pro-Israel American official being derelict in his duty due to his devotion to a Zionist platform.

[SemperFi]

@SemperFi

. . . (and it is only you who assure us that the Constitution is incompatible with Vatican policy) . . .

Sorry to boret for the screw-up, should have said “it is only the OP who assures us . . .”

[John_Mace]

@boret

From the mouth of Roberts himself:

Huh? More like: from the mouths of 2 unidentified sources, paraphrased in an opinion piece.

Here’s the way it works around here. Give us a cite from a hard news source with exact quotes if you want to enter that piece as evidence. Opinion pieces are notorious for taking things out of context and reporting rumors as facts.

[Metacom]

@John Mace

Here’s the way it works around here. Give us a cite from a hard news source with exact quotes if you want to enter that piece as evidence.

That’s how it works around here? Cite?

[John_Mace]

@Metacom

That’s how it works around here? Cite?

My post is my cite.

[Monty]

@Evil Captor

Catholicism is a hierarchical religion. According to Catholic doctrine, the preists, etc. intercede between God and the individual Catholic. In other religions, there’s a direct relationship between God and the individual. So no one can be excommunicated for having political opinions that vary from the faithful’s. A rabbi’s ruling, or a Protestant minster’s judgement, are really just opinions, however respected that opinion might be. Not so Catholicism.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Roman Catholic Church is the only hierarcial religion.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a protestant was never ejected from his congregation for his stance on a political issue.

[boret]

@Metacom

That’s how it works around here? Cite?

Seriously, John Mace is right. I didn’t realize the exchange had been disputed, but other news articles suggest that it was. Sorry, and I retract my quoted cite (If the LA Times and NY times aren’t considered “hard news” sites, then what sites are? Shouldn’t even op-eds be fact-checked by the publishing source? ).

But I’d like to continue to posit my follow-up questions as a hypothetical, if you don’t mind. In lieu of Roberts coming out with any hard answers one way or another (he did not answer Turley’s insistence that the quote was accurate).

[furt]

@John Mace

Huh? More like: from the mouths of 2 unidentified sources,

Durbin himself has backed away from this story.

[beagledave]

By my count, both Bricker and Miller have each made a similar request for proof of the assertions in the OP…

Give an example of the sort of act for which (a) Catholic canon law permits excommunication, and (b) you believe a Supreme Court Justice should be permitted to commit.

and

Provide, if you would be so kind, a list of judges and politicians who have been excommunicated, denied communion, or otherwise sanctioned by the Church for acting in the political arena in a way contrary to the dictates of the Pope.

Does Evil Captor have any interest in backing up his OP by answering these?

[John_Mace]

@boret

(If the LA Times and NY times aren’t considered “hard news” sites, then what sites are? Shouldn’t even op-eds be fact-checked by the publishing source?

Editorials get a lot more leeway, I believe. Of course the LAT and NYT are mainstream media that we’d all accept as cites, but not from their Op Ed pages. Farnkly, even if it was a real news story, though, there is less credibility when “unnamed sources” are quoted.

And I didn’t mean to be snarky. You’re new around here, so I wouldn’t expect you to know all the unwritten “rules” of GD.

[Knorf]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

But an important one.

If I, while wearing my uniform that marks me as a police officer, express disapproval of the fact that you are chewing your gum with your mouth open, so be it.

But if I try to exert that authority as a police officer by arresting you, my commanding officer will laugh me right out of the precinct.

WHOOSH!

So it is with the Church and withholding of the sacraments. A priest may refuse to give a *Roe v. Wade * supporter communion, but that doesn’t mean that his actions are sanctioned by the Church.

I seem to recall at least one Bishop, any perhaps an Archbishop as well … people such as Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans, Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, and Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, among others, all suggesting or outrighting stating that politicians who are pro-choice cannot be Catholic, and they who are and those who vote for them with that in mind should be denied Communion (ideally voluntarily).
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.

By the way, I am already on record as saying I do not foresee such a thing being a problem for Judge Roberts (i.e. following Catholic dogma over the U.S.Constitution).

John Roberts pledged Tuesday to respect established rulings if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying judges must recognize that their role is “not to solve society’s problems.”

Cite.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

I seem to recall at least one Bishop, any perhaps an Archbishop as well … people such as Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans, Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, and Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, among others, all suggesting or outrighting stating that politicians who are pro-choice cannot be Catholic, and they who are and those who vote for them with that in mind should be denied Communion (ideally voluntarily).

None of whom are the Church.

I haven’t been whooshed, amigo.

[astorian]

For those who think the Pope is dictating Antonin Scalia’s opinions on abortion (or any other Catholic justice’s), here’s something to mull over:

Has Antonin Scalia ever stated in ANY of his opinions that abortion is forbidden by the Constitution? Has he ever tried to claim that there’s a hidden or ambiguous codicil in the Constitution that declares a fetus has rights upon conception? The answer is, no! He hasn’t. Even the most conservative Catholic justice has never tried to use his position to outlaw abortion. At most, they’ve argued (correctly, in my view) that Roe vs. Wade was a badly written, badly thought out, dishonest decision (heck, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said the same thing), and that the Constitution is mum on the issue of abortion.

In short, Scalia and Thomas are NOT parroting the pope on the subject of abortion. They’re saying to liberals and conservatives alike, “Whether abortion is legal or illegal shouldn’t be up to the courts. Get to work and try to get the legislation you want passed.”

But it’s not surprising so many liberals fail to grasp that concept. THEY’VE been so habituated to running to Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan to have their views imposed on the public, they can’t imagine for a moment that conservative justices wouldn’t be as quick as Thurgood and Bill to substitute their own opinions for the text of the Constitution.

[Othersider]

I personally don’t care whether or not he’s a hardcore Catholic - unless that somehow affects his ability to judge what’s right or not based on his personal beliefs in lieu of considering all sides to a situation…but that’s not really here nor is it really there…I’ll shut up now…

[foolsguinea]

@Bricker

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.

But it may be a culturally valid objection.

Four Catholics is really quite enough. A fifth would be… strange, for a country as Protestant as the USA.

It’s like having a SCOTUS entirely from the East Coast, or entirely of white men, or… wait a minute…

You know, I thnk we need Lani Guinier to devise a new way of picking justices.

[The_Highwayman]

It is quite perplexing how my Church, which I cite as a major influence on my being a Democrat, has seemed to gotten in bed with that institution of Satan, the Republican Party. Above all, I thought my Church strove for social justice in society but it seems that American Catholics have turned a blind eye to this aspect of the faith and would rather focus most myopically on the abortion issue alone. I myself am against abortion personally and resolve that when I’m able to be pregnant (it’s a joke), I would decide my conscious. I do not see any reason to force my views on other non-Catholics.

Now when we go for Sunday Mass we hear homilies delivered against liberals and preaching from the pulpit. Priest seemingly to have forgotten the humanity of Christ, our greatest teacher. Many have forgotten His petitions for brotherhood, replaced by the mealy-mouthed bile of the rotten conservative ideologues. It seems that we liberal Catholics need to go into a religious coma until the American Church wakes up. I hope it does before they find us leaving the flock.

It pains me to see so many of my fellow Catholics ignoring the fact that the Republican Party has never run a Catholic for president in its history. It pains me to see them ignoring that this party was founded in part by the anti-Catholic Know Nothings in the 19th century. It pains me to see that my fellow Catholic is being used by this party which has never given a rat’s ass about us and some of whose members would spit in our face and call us papists if social convention allowed them to.

So we are against abortion because it forces someone who does not believe in it to partake as part of a larger society. Tell me how this is different from the pacifist who tolerates capital punishment and war but is forced to pay taxes with the rest of us? How can you ignore most of the teachings of the Church and pick and choose those that appeal to you? **I have news for you fellow Catholics: You are being used by a party who could care less about you. **

The reason why there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court? They are steadfast conservatives on social issues. Why is Roberts up there? Because they are trying to stack the court with social conservatives to insure that their twisted and hypocritical views on society enjoy the best audience possible. See, we’re not trusted with the controls of the country, just the things they can count on you to do for them. They are gunning for Roe v. Wade my friends.