Abortion vs. War: How Should I Vote?

[miguel]

Ah, well then, I would support its use in stripping this issue from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Good. It’s one of the tools to check an activist Court.

Don’t minimize, however, the risk to the politicians who might try to do this.

Not only do I not minimize it, political risk fully explains, to me anyway, why it hasn’t been used, why they would rather ordinary mortals not even bring it up. It blows the cover off the pretense that their hands are tied by a Court decision, that we have to wait interminably to elect GOP (and hopefully prolife) Presidents so they can appoint “strict constructionist” (and hopefully pro-life) judges through a hostile (and not foolproof) confirmation process. This pretense takes the heat off politicians. It does not serve the babies. I don’t see the harm in folks recognizing it for what it is. The more people are aware, the less passing of the buck.

Support for abortion is certainly stronger among Democrats but it still exists among Republicans and even more so among independents. Given that Republicans are continually beaten up for - essentially - not banning abortion, it is not at all clear, should they go this route, that they would pick up very many Democrats - even as they could possibly lose significant support from the rest of the voters. After all, they are described as hypocrites and for not really caring about this issue, that their actions are merely posturing. Suppose they attempted this and it failed - as I contend it inevitably would. Why wouldn’t this just generate more of the same charges? Democrats who oppose abortion are in large numbers unwilling to give up their other political objectives and support the only side that might end abortion. The rationalizations are endless, and attempting and failing to pass a “stripping” bill would cost Republicans votes from the people who support them now that would not be compensated for by the people who oppose them on everything other than abortion.

I have a certain attitude about this after watching with growing disgust the last 37 years. Political parties are coalitions. The GOP has a substantial block of prolife conservative voters who won’t be going over to the Democrats. Arguably, they’ve taken that block for granted. But the elections are so close they can’t afford to lose even part of that block. The one thing the rest of GOP voters surely share with prolife conservatives is the fear of Democrats in power. Prolifers need to figure out how to use that.

 

[Ender]

Not only do I not minimize it, political risk fully explains, to me anyway, why it hasn’t been used, why they would rather ordinary mortals not even bring it up. It blows the cover off the pretense that their hands are tied by a Court decision, that we have to wait interminably to elect GOP (and hopefully prolife) Presidents so they can appoint “strict constructionist” (and hopefully pro-life) judges through a hostile (and not foolproof) confirmation process. This pretense takes the heat off politicians. It does not serve the babies. I don’t see the harm in folks recognizing it for what it is. The more people are aware, the less passing of the buck.

This comment makes my case. Having done pretty much everything (else) they could, what is the attitude of non-Republicans toward their efforts? “It is mere pretense.” If you won’t support them for what they have done in the past, why would they expect you to support them in the future? So long as abortion is legal (the generic) you can complain that they aren’t serious … and of course if Roe is ever overturned you won’t need them any more, so there is no rational expectation that very many people who oppose them now will ever support them, whether they succeed or fail. On the other hand, as I said, some Republicans stand to lose significant support that they now enjoy if they take this step - so where is the incentive to take a futile action that may well cost someone his career?

Ender

 

[miguel]

This comment makes my case. Having done pretty much everything (else) they could, what is the attitude of non-Republicans toward their efforts? “It is mere pretense.” If you won’t support them for what they have done in the past, why would they expect you to support them in the future? So long as abortion is legal (the generic) you can complain that they aren’t serious … and of course if Roe is ever overturned you won’t need them any more, so there is no rational expectation that very many people who oppose them now will ever support them, whether they succeed or fail. On the other hand, as I said, some Republicans stand to lose significant support that they now enjoy if they take this step - so where is the incentive to take a futile action that may well cost someone his career?

Ender

Obviously, this whole discussion about Article III, Section 2 is academic with the Democrats in charge. It’s more important that prolifers at least become aware of it and put it in the arsenal, to prepare for the next time the GOP holds the Senate, the House, and the Presidency and tries to pretend their hands are tied by Roe. The more we the people know about our Constitution, the less our masters can play us.

 

[ryecroft]

Regardless of what is being said, it has also been stated by the Bishops that you can vote with your concience. This allowed many to feel that they did not have to vote (against Obama) - I really believe that there are Catholics who were able to bote inline with their concience and not vote for the pro choice candidate. I guess I’m hoping that many voted with their concience - this seems to be the only way to give reason why so many Catholics voted for Obama.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Come on. Obviously, there was a first iteration for Thomas to express this view as a Supreme Court justice. When he did that, he wasn’t reiterating. There was nothing to prevent Roberts and Alito from expressing a similar clarifying concurrence as Thomas. They didn’t. That says something. It isn’t good.

Miguel:

Both Justices Roberts & Alito had to do the “Tapdance” around the Abortion Issue and Roe v. Wade during their Senate Confirmation Hearings. Both had claimed (rightly) that they would strictly apply the Law and the constitution and both refused to state their private opinions on Abortion and Roe v Wade. They both knew that even the hint of an opinion on those subjects could scuttle their nominations - They both knew how the Democrats and the Pro-Abortion Lobby had derailed Judge Robert Bork’s nomination and had defamed and nearly derailed Justice Clarence Thomas’ nomination. They both knew that just making the ruling they made on that case already confirmed the worst fears of most members of the Pro-Abortion Lobby - They also knew that making ANY statements such as the one made by Justice Thomas would PERMANENTLY Derail ALL (Potential Pro-Life) Nominations to ANY COURT made by President Bush or any future “Pro-Life” Republican President.

Can’t you see, if Justices Alito & Roberts had joined Justice Thomas in his Concurring Opinion, the ONLY Nominees ANY Republican President would ever get through the Senate would be those who were acceptable to the Abortion Lobby?

Can’t you see that your unreasonable demand would have only resulted in an unmitigated disaster for our side? and, That it would have accomplished NOTHING?

I can see you’re a skilled debater - NO doubt about that. But that hasn’t kept you from buying one of the Enemy’s LIES. The Enemy of the Brethren, the Father of Lies wants us to do what you’re doing. Can’t you see that you’ve fallen into one of his traps?

Please, you may have given up doing what is right - Don’t counsel others to do that just when we’re finally convincing people of the Injustice of Abortion.

Your Brother & servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Obviously, this whole discussion about Article III, Section 2 is academic with the Democrats in charge. It’s more important that prolifers at least become aware of it and put it in the arsenal, to prepare for the next time the GOP holds the Senate, the House, and the Presidency and tries to pretend their hands are tied by Roe. The more we the people know about our Constitution, the less our masters can play us.

Miguel:

If Article III, Section 2 is such a powerful tool, WHY has it NEVER been invoked in our country’s history? Why has Congress NEVER voted to LIMIT the scope of the power of the Supreme Courts “Appellate Jurisdiction”?
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
constitution.org/usconsti.htm#article3
Why has Congress NEVER voted to exclude Legislation from review as this would seem to suggest they could? Why do we have NO attempts by Congress in the entire history of our country to use this supposed Authority if it exists?

Maybe, Because it doesn’t. Maybe, because you’d have to wind back the clock to Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)). Stare Decisis means we can’t wave off 207 years of Legal Jurisprudence just because someone doesn’t like the results.

If we want a Human Life Amendment, then we have to change people’s HEARTS & MINDS. That means we have to show people what Abortion looks like, what it does to women who have it, and how the babies who are killed are actually babies. For the first time in history, SCIENCE allows us to show people that babies in utero are just that, babies. For the first time in history, SCIENCE will allow us to change people’s hearts and minds with INFORMATION they can’t refute or ignore. To show this to people in their schools and in the Abortion Clinics requires legislation - a seemingly small victory, but one that will allow us to change hearts and minds.

Do we have you? or, Are you going to be counseling people as you have been here?

Michael

 

[Ender]

Traditional Ang -

I agree with your comments about the confirmation hearings but I disagree with your opinion as to why Roberts and Alito did not join Thomas’ dissent in the Carhart case. First, it would make no difference in the way the Democrats would treat future Republican nominees: they will be treated no differently than nominees were treated in the past … I mean, how much worse could it be than the way they treated Bork and Thomas?

It seems to me that they did exactly the right thing in Carhart. First, as I pointed out in an earlier post, unlike Scalia and Thomas, they had never heard a case where Roe was challenged so there really was no possibility of concurring in a dissent where a position they had never held was being reiterated. Second, Roe may be the single most contentious ruling the court has ever made and it would have been a disservice to us and to the court for them to offer an opinion without even hearing the arguments.

It is not enough to simply reverse Roe; it has to be done within the context of the law, the courts, and the Constitution. Anything less would permanently damage the concept of the rule of law. Roe has done enough damage without adding that.

Ender

 

[miguel]

Miguel:

If Article III, Section 2 is such a powerful tool, WHY has it NEVER been invoked in our country’s history? Why has Congress NEVER voted to LIMIT the scope of the power of the Supreme Courts “Appellate Jurisdiction”?

Not true. Please go and read the link I provided. It has been used and, as I said above, also recognized as legitimate by the Court more than once. Not to mention it’s in the Constitution and has never been deleted by Amendment.

 

[miguel]

Miguel:

Both Justices Roberts & Alito had to do the “Tapdance” around the Abortion Issue and Roe v. Wade during their Senate Confirmation Hearings.

I’ve been over this with Ender. Roberts said in his circuit court hearing there was nothing that would prevent him from “firmly and faithfully” applying the precedent of Roe. In his chief justice hearing he said Roe was “settled law”. This isn’t exactly a tapdance. On both of these occasions, he dealt with the subject of Roe. But I agree with Ender and you, apparently, that you can’t totally go by what prospective Republican appointees might say on these occasions. But I also think it’s fair, given past GOP appointments who have turned out to be disasters for the babies, to be skeptical, rather than gullible.

 

[miguel]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
constitution.org/usconsti.htm#article3
Why has Congress NEVER voted to exclude Legislation from review as this would seem to suggest they could?

It certainly does suggest they could. And it is a congressional check against the abuse of judicial power, along with the other checks including impeachment, presidential appointments of judges with the advice and consent of the Senatae, free political speech, freedom of religion, voting, etc. This is not exhaustive, but these are all examples of checks and balances. The fundamental belief of the framers was that all governments abuse their power. Their intention, in giving us a written Constitution, that even ordinary mortals can read, was to set the limits of their power and provide ample means to mitigate inevitable abuses of power. The current prevalent notion that the judiciary has final and ultimate say over the other two branches was anathema to the framers…which is obvious in the text of the constitution itself and in select passages of the Federalist papers where the political philosophy behind the constitution is so wonderfully debated.

 

[djeter]

On the Abortion vs War debate – I think this finds its origins in Doug Kmiec’s opinions during the last election.

Here is Professor Robert George taking ole Doug to the wood shed last year after the election and after Obama had shown his true colors. Very entertaining. A video link if you want to watch but post features transcripts of some of the exchanges if you want to read about the issue.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

dj

 

[Ender]

I’ve been over this with Ender. Roberts said in his circuit court hearing there was nothing that would prevent him from “firmly and faithfully” applying the precedent of Roe.

I missed this before but this objection is completely without merit. From the perspective of a circuit court judge Roe is the law and any judge is absolutely obligated to firmly and faithfully apply it. Only the Supreme Court can change that. Or are you suggesting that judges should ignore what laws say and rule based on what they would like them to say?

But I also think it’s fair, given past GOP appointments who have turned out to be disasters for the babies, to be skeptical, rather than gullible.

One may question whether GOP appointments will turn out to be good but there is no question at all that Democrat appointments will turn out to be bad. The argument that one is justified in not supporting Republicans because their court appointments are not guaranteed to be good is a rationalization. It is used to salve ones conscience and make it appear justifiable to support politicians who perpetuate abortion. I have little patience with people - and I put most of the bishops in this category - who pontificate about the evils of abortion and then turn around and enable the very people whose support is necessary for its perpetuation.

Ender

 

[fix]

I missed this before but this objection is completely without merit. From the perspective of a circuit court judge Roe is the law and any judge is absolutely obligated to firmly and faithfully apply it. Only the Supreme Court can change that. Or are you suggesting that judges should ignore what laws say and rule based on what they would like them to say?

Ender

I want to ask a question, and perhaps it has been answered before? Why is a judge obligated to apply an unjust law? What is the Catholic teaching in such matters? I ask because it seems the law gets a separate moral code at times. A soldier would not be obligated to obey an unjust command just because a higher authority said so. A physician is not obligated to perform an immoral treatment because the law says so.

What is the moral reasoning that claims a judge’s properly formed conscience must apply a settled law that is manifestly unjust?

 

[michaeldaniels]

You are absolutely right Sir Knight…great post!

Not according to Church teaching. The five issues that I mentioned previously ([1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION) are Non-Negotiable for Catholic voters.

 

[Ender]

I want to ask a question, and perhaps it has been answered before? Why is a judge obligated to apply an unjust law? What is the Catholic teaching in such matters? I ask because it seems the law gets a separate moral code at times. A soldier would not be obligated to obey an unjust command just because a higher authority said so. A physician is not obligated to perform an immoral treatment because the law says so.

What is the moral reasoning that claims a judge’s properly formed conscience must apply a settled law that is manifestly unjust?

What would happen to the rule of law if judges ignored what the laws actually said and ruled based on their own personal belief as to what the laws should say? If you grant to the anti-abortion judge the right to ignore laws that permit abortion you at the same time grant to the judge who supports abortion the right to ignore laws that restrict it. Here is how Aquinas addressed the issue:

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): “In these earthly laws, though men judge about them when they are making them, when once they are established and passed, the judges may judge no longer of them, but according to them.” (ST, II/II 60,5)

Ender

 

[fix]

What would happen to the rule of law if judges ignored what the laws actually said and ruled based on their own personal belief as to what the laws should say?

But, that is not the question. No one says law should be based on personal beliefs. Is there any circumstance when a judge should refuse to cooperate with serious evil?

If you grant to the anti-abortion judge the right to ignore laws that permit abortion you at the same time grant to the judge who supports abortion the right to ignore laws that restrict it.

But, they are not the same thing. Surely, there is a standard other than claiming the law must be followed regardless of how unjust?

Here is how Aquinas addressed the issue:

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): “In these earthly laws, though men judge about them when they are making them, when once they are established and passed, the judges may judge no longer of them, but according to them.” (ST, II/II 60,5)

Ender

So, what I am asking is there any Church teaching on this issue? I really have no idea and was wondering if you knew.

 

[Ender]

But, that is not the question. No one says law should be based on personal beliefs. Is there any circumstance when a judge should refuse to cooperate with serious evil?

A judge must either interpret the law as written or resign. What he may not do is ignore what the law says when issuing a ruling.

So, what I am asking is there any Church teaching on this issue? I really have no idea and was wondering if you knew.

I have no reason to believe the Church has an opinion that is different than that proposed by Augustine and seconded by Aquinas. I strongly suspect that what I quoted earlier is what the Church believes.

Ender

 

[fix]

A judge must either interpret the law as written or resign. What he may not do is ignore what the law says when issuing a ruling.

Ok, so legally and morally, the judge has no authority to alter the law. If he will be illicitly cooperating with evil he must step aside on that case. That seems to mean things must be evaluated case by case.

I have no reason to believe the Church has an opinion that is different than that proposed by Augustine and seconded by Aquinas. I strongly suspect that what I quoted earlier is what the Church believes.

Ender

I have no idea. It would seem the Judge is bound as we all are. Meaning we may not illicitly cooperate with evil and that is not always a bright line.

 

[miguel]

I want to ask a question, and perhaps it has been answered before? Why is a judge obligated to apply an unjust law? What is the Catholic teaching in such matters? I ask because it seems the law gets a separate moral code at times. A soldier would not be obligated to obey an unjust command just because a higher authority said so. A physician is not obligated to perform an immoral treatment because the law says so.

What is the moral reasoning that claims a judge’s properly formed conscience must apply a settled law that is manifestly unjust?

Fix. You are absolutely right. He’s not obligated to apply an unjust law. His judicial oath obligates him to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic among other things.

 

[miguel]

What would happen to the rule of law if judges ignored what the laws actually said and ruled based on their own personal belief as to what the laws should say?

Robert Bork in his book “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges”, gave his thoughts on the phrase “rule of law”. To him it is the written constitution itself. When judicial opinion deviates from the Constitution, that is not the rule of law. Sound judicial opinion supports and defends the rule of law (the Constitution). Unsound judicial opinion amounts to the dicatorship of relativism. Judges come and go. Interpretations come and go. The written constitution remains. That is the rule of law.