Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[HomeschoolDad]

Breaking a promise is not the same thing as lying. A promise can be made in total good faith but become either impossible or impractical to keep due to changes in information or circumstances.

Breaking one’s promise is not a lie unless, at the time you gave the promise, you intended to break it. A lie is, after all, a false statement with intent to deceive at the time you give it.

The morality of the action may still be questionable, but it’s not a lie.

Thank you. This is exactly the defense I was going to offer for myself.

“Morality” doesn’t always fit into nice, neat little boxes. There are times in life when anything we do (or refrain from doing) is going to have jagged edges — there is no choice that doesn’t have something undesirable attached to it.

 

[Rau]

Breaking one’s promise is not a lie unless, at the time you gave the promise, you intended to break it. A lie is, after all, a false statement with intent to deceive at the time you give it.

The morality of the action may still be questionable, but it’s not a lie.

That’s right. Promises can be nebulous. Almost all (must) rest on some assumptions which may be unspoken.

 

[Rau]

“I promise to love, honor, and obey…” just as long as it’s possible (in my opinion) or circumstances don’t change (forget that “in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer” nonsense).

Those bits aren’t forgotten - they are spelled out explicitly in the promise. Not a good example!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Those bits aren’t forgotten - they are spelled out explicitly in the promise. Not a good example!

I’m uncertain how many ways I can be misinterpreted, but you’ve found another! I have to admit I’m amazed.

Here is the point: If you say that a promise can be broken if the circumstances change (whether it be UK vs. EU, marriage, Senate rules, whatever) then there is no such thing as a promise. Because as Heraclitus said, “You can’t step in the same river twice.” Circumstances ALWAYS change. So if you promise to marry someone “in sickness and in health” and five years later–surprise!–circumstances have changed and you say “Well, I meant that five years ago. You were healthy then. But now you’re dying of cancer. Sorry. I’m out of here.”

Now several people have held the position that “a promise is not a lie if you don’t intend to deceive when you make the promise.” An interesting theory. But I don’t think it makes sense. Pick a scenario, any scenario. Take “in sickness and in health.” Are you “lying” if in the back of your mind you have a mental reservation–that might not even be articulated or conscious at the time–such as, “Well, if she’s brain dead…no.” or “If he’s totally senile…no.” or “If she is paralyzed…no.” I would say yes, you are lying. You are only telling the truth if you promise something without reservation or exception. Now of course you could have some legal contract that lays out explicit exceptions, but that’s part of the promise.

And then we have the people arguing that you can break a promise if it’s for the “greater good” (in your opinion). No. You can’t. It’s morally wrong. It’s situation ethics. Might you do it in certain circumstances? Sure. Would you have a high level of culpability? Probably not. But is it wrong? Yes.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Here is the point: If you say that a promise can be broken if the circumstances change (whether it be UK vs. EU, marriage, Senate rules, whatever) then there is no such thing as a promise. Because as Heraclitus said, “You can’t step in the same river twice.” Circumstances ALWAYS change. So if you promise to marry someone “in sickness and in health” and five years later–surprise!–circumstances have changed and you say “Well, I meant that five years ago. You were healthy then. But now you’re dying of cancer. Sorry. I’m out of here.”

So let me get this straight — let’s suppose you have promised a stranger that you will sell them a gun. You shook on it, you gave your word. Then you find out that they have a history of domestic violence, and they have threatened to shoot someone. You could even go to prison if they act on this, using the gun you have promised to sell them, because of your lack of due diligence — “but he seemed like such a nice guy!” — but you are bound by your word — “but I promised”.

If — adopting your point of view on this matter — promises always bind under pain of sin, then the only thing I could recommend, is that nobody ever promise to do anything for anyone, because you never know what kind of pickle dish you’re going to get yourself in.

I’m going to continue doing as I do, and thinking as I think, unless someone can show me (and everyone else here who agrees with me) a clear teaching from the magisterium that all promises must always be kept, and that failing to keep a promise, in each and every case whatsoever, is both tantamount to lying and is a sin. I try not to be one of those “sources, please” people, but yes, this time, I’m going to need sources.

Marriage is a separate case, as it is a sacrament, and vows are taken. Still, though, to remain with a spouse is not an absolute requirement in all cases. If a spouse goes crazy and is threatening to kill you, of course you are within your rights to get gone, and stay gone if you have to.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Trump SCOTUS Confirmation Historically Justified: 29 Times Presidents Have Made Nominations In Election Years | Charlie Kirk

Speaking to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Senator Ted Cruz explained, “twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Presidents have made nominations all 29 times.” Each and every sitting president took the opportunity to make their nomination.

“There’s a big difference in the Senate, with whether the Senate is of the same party of the president or a different party than the president” explained Cruz. “If the parties are the same, the Senate confirms the nominee” he added. Of the 29 nominations, 19 were made by a President of the same political party of the Senate. 17 of those 19 were confirmed.

There you have it, Democrats. All of your presidents took their respective opportunities to put their own justice on the court. They were held up at the Senate. Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is highly likely, and once again, historically justified.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So let me get this straight — let’s suppose you have promised a stranger that you will sell them a gun. You shook on it, you gave your word. Then you find out that they have a history of domestic violence, and they have threatened to shoot someone. You could even go to prison if they act on this, using the gun you have promised to sell them, because of your lack of due diligence — “but he seemed like such a nice guy!” — but you are bound by your word — “but I promised”.

Yup. It would be morally wrong to break a promise. But of course–as in almost all cases–there are ways around this. In your example, you could go to the police and tell them you were going to sell your gun (which you have with you) to this guy who you discovered has a history of domestic violence and who has threatened to shoot someone. You could innocently ask “Do you think I should sell him this gun?” And the police–assuming an ounce of common sense–would say, “Absolutely not.” And you innocently ask, “Well, what should I do with it?” And they might say, “Turn it in to the police!” And you follow orders and now you don’t have the gun.

Or if you don’t like that example, what if you took the gun and damaged it so it wouldn’t work (I don’t know anything about guns, but I assume with some combination of a hammer, drill, and file you could do it quickly; maybe you bend the barrel a bit). Then you go to the guy and say “Hey, here’s the gun I promised, but look–it’s damaged and won’t work.”

promises always bind under pain of sin

then the only thing I could recommend, is that nobody ever promise to do anything for anyone , because you never know what kind of pickle dish you’re going to get yourself in.

Two points: As with almost every sin, there are degrees. “I promise to take the garbage out tonight” doesn’t rank up there with “I promise to marry you” or “l promise to pay back the $100,000 loan.” Just like stealing–all stealing–is wrong. Making a private photocopy at work is stealing (you are stealing the paper, toner, and use of the copier). But it hardly ranks up there with robbing a bank or embezzling $1 million.

The second point is expressed best by Ecclesiastes–
5 It is better not to promise anything than to promise something and not do it.

6 Don’t let your words cause you to sin, and don’t say to the priest at the Temple, “I didn’t mean what I promised.” If you do, God will become angry with your words and will destroy everything you have worked for.

In other words, only promise what you can deliver. Common sense. Why not say “I’ll see if I can…” or “I’ll try to…” or “I can’t think of any reason right now to stop me from…”

Now all this started because of the Republicans saying one thing in 2016 and another in 2020, esp. Lindsey Graham. So here’s one for Lindsey to think about:

Proverbs 19:1 Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There you have it, Democrats. All of your presidents took their respective opportunities to put their own justice on the court. They were held up at the Senate. Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is highly likely, and once again, historically justified .

Well no. What we have is a mixed bag of events. There are precedents for all possibilities. As Kamala pointed out in her debate, Lincoln was faced with a SC vacancy within 27 days of the 1864 election. He didn’t nominate anyone until after the election, in December. And Republicans controlled the Senate, as they do now. Now the “why” of this is unknown. And even if we had some sort of evidence–a letter, a speech, etc.–“why” is not a question history can answer (See “Historians Fallacies,” David Hackett Fischer). The point is that there is certainly a precedent for waiting until after the election.

 

[vz71]

Yup. It would be morally wrong to break a promise

So what specific sin is it when one breaks a promise?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Now I’m going to go out on a limb. You conservatives object to “cancel culture” and “censoring” and so on. And yet you have “cancelled” my posts–here and elsewhere. So again, consistency. Free speech: for or against? Looks to me like “against” wins. So I withdraw from the field. Talk among yourselves and see who can praise the Republicans the most.

 

[JSRG]

1cthlctrth:

There you have it, Democrats. All of your presidents took their respective opportunities to put their own justice on the court. They were held up at the Senate. Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is highly likely, and once again, historically justified .

Well no. What we have is a mixed bag of events. There are precedents for all possibilities. As Kamala pointed out in her debate, Lincoln was faced with a SC vacancy within 27 days of the 1864 election. He didn’t nominate anyone until after the election, in December. And Republicans controlled the Senate, as they do now. Now the “why” of this is unknown. And even if we had some sort of evidence–a letter, a speech, etc.–“why” is not a question history can answer (See “Historians Fallacies,” David Hackett Fischer). The point is that there is certainly a precedent for waiting until after the election.

Actually, we know quite well why he didn’t: The Senate wasn’t in session and wouldn’t return until December. It thus was actively impossible to confirm someone before the election, so there was no point in nominating someone at the time. So he waited until the Senate came back and was able to actually confirm someone (Salmon Chase)–and the Senate confirmed him on the same day that Lincoln nominated him.

Harris was misrepresenting history to leave that rather important fact out.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yup. It would be morally wrong to break a promise. But of course–as in almost all cases–there are ways around this. In your example, you could go to the police and tell them you were going to sell your gun (which you have with you) to this guy who you discovered has a history of domestic violence and who has threatened to shoot someone. You could innocently ask “Do you think I should sell him this gun?” And the police–assuming an ounce of common sense–would say, “Absolutely not.” And you innocently ask, “Well, what should I do with it?” And they might say, “Turn it in to the police!” And you follow orders and now you don’t have the gun.

Or if you don’t like that example, what if you took the gun and damaged it so it wouldn’t work (I don’t know anything about guns, but I assume with some combination of a hammer, drill, and file you could do it quickly; maybe you bend the barrel a bit). Then you go to the guy and say “Hey, here’s the gun I promised, but look–it’s damaged and won’t work.”

Words fail me. But I’ll give it a try nonetheless.

In the first instance, what if the police don’t say “turn it in”? Then you’ve still got that gun you promised to sell the man. You can either keep your promise and sell it to him (risking a conviction for being the accessory to his crime), or you can break your promise and prevent a great evil.

In the second instance, if you deliberately damaged your gun, you would also be “breaking your promise”, because you promised to sell the gun as it existed at that time. What if you promised to sell the man a pit bull — I’m told they make lovely pets — found out that the man was going to starve and beat the dog to make the dog mean, and then enter the dog in a dogfight? Would I then humanely take the dog’s life, deliver the dead dog, and say “I promised to sell you the dog, I didn’t promise the dog would be alive when I delivered him to you”? (I find the idea of euthanizing a healthy dog as repulsive as anyone else would. I visited the grave of a neighbor’s beloved dog today when I went to check the neighbor’s doors, he’s out of town.)

I do apologize, I’m sure this isn’t the case, but all of these gymnastics, to keep from breaking a promise to avert a far greater evil, under the rubric of “breaking promises is always sinful”, borders on scrupulosity.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Now I’m going to go out on a limb. You conservatives object to “cancel culture” and “censoring” and so on. And yet you have “cancelled” my posts–here and elsewhere. So again, consistency. Free speech: for or against? Looks to me like “against” wins. So I withdraw from the field. Talk among yourselves and see who can praise the Republicans the most.

That’s your choice, but I’m not cancelling or censoring you — I appreciate your contribution to the discussion — I’m not all that conservative except where abortion is concerned, and I don’t even particularly like the Republicans (I am nominally registered as a Democrat, as I must do that, to vote in their primaries in my state). I’d like to see a social welfare state with fairly high taxes and all of the things necessary for a decent, secure, healthy life provided by the state to everyone at little or no cost, and that is totally the antithesis of everything Republicans stand for. But the protection of innocent, defenseless, unborn human life is more important than any of that. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

 

[Aulef]

Am I the only one who got worried when Sen Graham asked judge Amy whether she could set aside whatever Catholic beliefs regarding any issue before her and she said yes and that she actually does it where she is at now (7th circuit)…?

 

[27lw]

I know this is off-topic, but I can’t help it since you had some misinformation there about pit bulls. You don’t have to read very far to see that they don’t always make great pets.
https://blog.dogsbite.org

 

[Polak]

If she had have said yes, her Catholic beliefs are part of who she is and are likely to influence the way she sees things, she’d have been hounded viciously.

I do wonder if senators would ask a Jewish or Muslim candidate for the Supreme Court the same thing though.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Depending upon the case, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I might have to disappoint a lot of pro-lifers by not making a decision that would make their dreams come true. Nobody would be more pained about that than I, however, I am a textualist and an originalist, and I wouldn’t “mine” the Constitution for something that’s just not there.

See, this is where I get a bit lost. You have said breaking a promise made in good faith is acceptable when done for the express purpose of saving innocent lives. Yet here you have implied that you could, as a judge, vote to advance the cause of abortion under certain circumstances because of your interpretation of your constitution.

Unless I am mistaken, it seems promises of good faith are superceded by pro-life considerations, yet these considerations are again superceded by promises to uphold the constitution in its original meaning.

It seems a bit inconsistent is all.

 

[PaulinVA]

Pete Buttigieg:

“At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the constitution is,” he said. "That is not about time-traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words. The constitution is a living document because the English language is a living language. And you need to have some readiness to understand that in order to serve on the court in a way that will actually make life better.

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that ‘We might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy as expect future generations to live under’ — what he called — ‘the regime of their barbarous ancestors.’” Buttigieg quotes. “So even the founders that these kind of deadhand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today’s judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Am I the only one who got worried when Sen Graham asked judge Amy whether she could set aside whatever Catholic beliefs regarding any issue before her and she said yes and that she actually does it where she is at now (7th circuit)…?

I could have lived without that question, myself. I thought it might have some sort of “Streisand effect” — the more attention you call to something, the larger a problem it becomes.

If she had have said yes, her Catholic beliefs are part of who she is and are likely to influence the way she sees things, she’d have been hounded viciously.

I do wonder if senators would ask a Jewish or Muslim candidate for the Supreme Court the same thing though.

I think we know the answer to that one. You could just as easily ask, for instance, a Jewish candidate for the Supreme Court whether their belief that the soul (ruach) does not enter the body until birth, could influence their decisions, and whether this would lead them to remove any restrictions on abortion in the second or third trimester. Guess which one would come out smelling like a rose, and which one would come out splattered with the mud of “anti-Semite!”.

HomeschoolDad:

Depending upon the case, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I might have to disappoint a lot of pro-lifers by not making a decision that would make their dreams come true. Nobody would be more pained about that than I, however, I am a textualist and an originalist, and I wouldn’t “mine” the Constitution for something that’s just not there.

See, this is where I get a bit lost. You have said breaking a promise made in good faith is acceptable when done for the express purpose of saving innocent lives. Yet here you have implied that you could, as a judge, vote to advance the cause of abortion under certain circumstances because of your interpretation of your constitution.

Unless I am mistaken, it seems promises of good faith are superceded by pro-life considerations, yet these considerations are again superceded by promises to uphold the constitution in its original meaning.

It seems a bit inconsistent is all.

Yes, you read me correctly. Justices can’t (or shouldn’t) try to find law where none exists. To use a reductio ad absurdum — which is very useful for illustrating and making more clear all sorts of arguments — if I am on the Supreme Court, and some way, somehow, someone has tried to make the case that the tax laws, traffic laws, or garbage disposal ordinances of the state of Alabama should be interpreted in such a way as to outlaw abortion, I’d have to say “sorry, counselor, if you must know, I hate abortion just as much as you do, but there is simply nothing in those laws that addresses abortion in the slightest, and I can’t go in and dig something out of them that just isn’t there”. There are probably some pro-lifers who would then dub me “baby killer!”, but that would just have to be their problem, not mine.

 

[pnewton]

I have been impressed with this woman. She seems to be the sharpest of the three Trump has nominated. I like Kavanaugh as well though. In any case, I hope everyone understands that these are not politicians. They will not follow party lines, except in those cases they see the legal validity of those arguments. I have little doubt that Barrett will rule against Trump post election if he tries something dubiously unconstitutional.