Let the Dems defeat Alito

I don't care if he'll repeal RvW or not. I only care that, if a case involving the issue is brought before him, that he will rule according to the law, not according to the Bible, or to his own religious beliefs.

 

So, do you really think he would vote to repeal Roe v. Wade, especially from that "vantage point?" He really didn't give a clear answer on that now, did he? Amazing that he would not do that, especially given the support he is receiving from those who seek to repeal that decision. Since he is most likely going to be confirmed, why wouldn't he be clear as to his position?

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]Eventually, yes I do. All we need is for one more liberal pro-death justice to retire while Bush is president and we will tip the balance of the court toward life and end the American Holocaust. Until that day happens, I am confident that he will also chip away at the availability and permissiveness of state sanctioned infanticide. I do have a litmus test for the civil rights of the unborn and I am not ashamed to say so.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi are aberrents from the Catholic church and the Catholic church official position on abortion.

 

If you mean thise who came over on the Mayflower then wern't they trying to get away from the King and Church of England?

HankD

 

What if the Catholics on the court decide to abolish abortion because the Pope does not approve of it?

Joseph Botwinick

 

cmg
"Do you really think that it is a picnic living in a Catholic country?"
"
I lived in one for half a year and no I wasn't pretending to be Catholic at the time.
I know the answer is yes.

 

mouse, to answer your question, probably not, but your response is evading my question.

IMO, The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to get away from the tyranny of both the King of England and his Church of which he was the titular head, a position created by the marriage of church and state (England) in 1531 by Henry the 8th.

To be sure, the Protestant Kings of England learned well their church polity and persecution of Christians from the parent Church in Rome, but Rome is not why the Pilgrims and Puritans fled to America.

Indeed many "Protestants" fled to America but it was because the Pilgrims and Puritans opened her doors to religious freedom (although they themsleves showed a measure of intolerance).

I understand your concerns about the Church of Rome and it is mine as well.

Just what would be the attitude of the kind and gentle Pope towards the "separated brethren" if he had the power of "Pontifex Maximus" once again?

I think just maybe we might have the "auto-da-fe" replace the Missionary Conference and the "Te Deum" (an old favorite hymn of the Church of Rome} revived once again.

http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

HankD

[ January 14, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Oddly enough, our Constitution was based largely on Natural Law, a belief in fundamental human rights developed by the Catholic Church. These principles were contradictory to the institution of slavery being practiced in the south, which was and is, prodominately baptist.

No country has ever been able to compare to the US because of its economic growth due to the exploitation of natural resources through lands taken by natives and industry built on slavery.

Just some things to think about...

[ January 14, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: stray bullet ]

 

I believe they made this statement in Vatican 2. They did, unfortunately, cross to the other extreme into heresy of universalism.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]One should not confuse the Catholic Church's recognition of exceptions with universalism. Rejecting the Gospel while being a 'good person' as universalism teaches, is contradictory to the Church's position.

We know that exceptions exist, unless we believe that babies, young children and the mentally ill or disabled are condemned simply for lack of access to the Gospel.

 

The Catholic Church does not teach a system of justification through merit. Such a belief has been strongly condemned, labelled anathemas by the Church, even as late as the 16th Century.

It's not that the death penalty is wrong, but that most applications of it are necessary and contrary to Christian principles. Let he who is without sin pull the first switch...

The Catholic Church is also the dominate Church in many European countries where the birth rate is very low. The problem with Mexico is poverty caused by political corruption compounded by a belief that the more kids you have, the better odds of one of the being successful. This is a common problem is all poor areas, like Indian, etc.

 

Is that the same separation being used to keep prayer out of schools and make companies afraid to wish customers Merry Christmas?
The Catholic Church supports Separation of Church and state as defined by our Forefathers- not establishing a government supported Church.

However, Catholics, like all fundamental and evangelical Christians, believe the law should reflect our morals and values. This includes prohibitions on things like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Catholics are not pawns of the Pope. These sorts of arguments have been made ever since the first Catholic came to the US and guess what, it's never come true. A basic understanding of Catholic doctrine would show that having Catholic officials and judges is not a concern- they can not be pawns of the Pope.

 

And that very point has bugged me this whole time, without my being able to put my finger on it. Thanks BiR

 

He can not be clear on his position about his future decisions as a judge because that undermines and defeats part of the purpose of the Judicary branch. You are giving Congress the power to determine all future Constitutional reviews before they are ever reviewed. That tips the system of checks and balances. It makes the Supreme Court a servant of Congress instead of an equal.

The Supreme Court balances Congress by striking down unconstitutional laws. If you get a candidates opinions on all future court matters, that no longer exists. "Okay, will let you be a judge if you promise to not call this law unconstitutional".. that can't happen.

You appoint people who are good, solid judges who will rule on Constitutional matters... not people who will bargain with Congress.

 

I believe the Puritans tried that a few hundred years ago. It led to the deaths of many innocent people who were labelled by the courts of law as witches.

 

Here is one liberal who is not concerned about Alito being confirmed to the Supreme Court. He seems like an honorable man who, I hope, will apply the Constitution fairly and accurately in all instances.

I also agree with Sen. Biden that it is perhaps time to do away with the committee hearings as these serve only to polarize people and are used by both sides of the isle to grandstand.

 

TH,

I appreciate your acceptance of Alito as an honorable person and giving him the benefit of the doubt as to how he will carry out his duties. It is an admirable openness all too lacking in the current, as you well-described it, polarization over Republican SCOTUS nominees. If you don't mind my identifying you with the Left and the Democratic Party (my apologies if you do), it is all the more admirable given the vocal opposition to him from that side of the partisan and philosophical aisle.

I am curious if you have any particular concerns about him.