The same might exist somewhere. But I do not consider abortion or religious freedom a “political position”.How about a Justice who does not strongly hold political positions? I know that might be seen as naive…
I guess he had a right to think it. But if one is firm in one’s principles, “worthy” is not what one seeks in an adversary.What’s wrong with that?
I have thought the same thing about the incumbent. I would love it if they did head on IQ tests.I’m not so certain.
I suspect Biden is losing his mind.
Fine, I think based on Humanae Vitae he is crystal clear on it, with “it” being what I said. As do the bishops. The preeminent priority is number one, not number only. It is of a magnitude greater, but not the only issue. In fact, one can even vote from Trump rather than someone more pro-life based on his greater chance of being elected. Such factors as effectiveness of vote, or effectiveness of office, can be considered.St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it (bold mine for emphasis)
LOL! He is a genius in his mind at least. The point is, if one is going to point at Biden and say his mind is slipping, four fingers are pointing back. Like I said, I would love for them to go head to head in a test of IQ.Clearly Trump is not only intelligent
the sentence being misinterpreted isThe bishops published a document on voting, not a sentence.
the next line needs to be read,if the voter’s intent is to support that position.
this doesn’t mean you can vote for an abortion candidate it just means you are in full cooperation if you support abortion. the next line just reminds us not to be indifferent to the other topics. not, vote for abortion if you believe in other issues.In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.
- There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
- Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death
- Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
- As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support
Apparently they did not feel Bork was qualified.Elena Kagan had been nominated to the appellate court by Clinton but the Republican senate refused to hold hearings on her nomination, so it failed. Another GOP stalling tactic. she then went on to become the first female US Solicitor General. You know, the post Bork held.
So, you don’t think she was qualified?
You left out intent. You cannot if the intent is to support abortion.this doesn’t mean you can vote for an abortion candidate it just means you are in full cooperation if you support abortion. t
If you call a judge ‘pro abortion’ there is no use continuing the discussion.this is the reality, the Dems will pick a pro-abortion judge and codify abortion into law, expanding it.
Bork had a history. Remember the ‘villain of Watergate’?Apparently they did not feel Bork was qualified.
Nominees used to come from academia but not any more.I have no problem with Kagan and would have no problem if they nominated someone who is not a judge.
Reversal is usually not quickly done. Plus, the Roe decision has been tested in the courts several times and has survived. Reversal now would be activism, pure and simple.I thought that until I looked up how many Supreme Court decisions have been reversed by a later court.
Harris isn’t talking roe v wade here, she is directly questioning the judge’s abortion view. she will obviously only pick a pro-abortion judge.If you call a judge ‘pro abortion’ there is no use continuing the discussion.
Harris, a member of the judiciary committee, wrote Buescher asking three questions: whether in joining the Knights he knew that the group opposed “a woman’s right to choose,” whether he knew it also opposed “marriage equality” — code language for same-sex marriage — and whether he “ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to any advocacy against women’s reproductive rights.”
Roe is bad law, bad law should be overturned, it isn’t activism.If you want a judge who will overturn Roe , what you are looking for is a partisan judge who will be an activist.
doesn’t mean it is good law, it still should be overturned. it was and is a stretch to equate the death of a child with a right to privacy.the Roe decision has been tested in the courts several times and has survived
voting for a Democrat will expand abortion.they will codify it into law, they will make it legal in all states up until and allow infanticide just after birth. they will pay for it here and abroad. safe, legal, and rare is a thing of the past.And I am against abortion.
There is not requirement to be or to have been a lawyer in order to serve on the court.Sanders is not a lawyer
Would you consider the 3/5 clause, which certainly set a precedent, as and a precedent which ought, appropriately, be adhered to?Adhering to precedent is appropriate.
Having an “an absolutely phenomenal law career” is different from being a great legal mind.
| Name of Justice | Prior Occupations | Years On Court | Appointed By President: |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. William Rehnquist | Asst. U.S. Attorney General | 1972-2005 | Nixon (Assoc., 1972), |
| Reagan (Chief, 1986) | |||
| 2. Lewis Powell | President of the American Bar Ass’n, | ||
| Private Practice | 1972-1987 | Nixon | |
| 3. Abe Fortas | Private Practice | 1965-1969 | Johnson |
| 4. Byron White | Deputy U.S. Attorney General | 1962-1993 | Kennedy |
| 5. Arthur Goldberg | U.S. Secretary of Labor | 1962-1965 | Kennedy |
| 6. Earl Warren | Governor of California | 1953-1969 | Eisenhower |
| 7. Tom Clark | U.S. Attorney General | 1949-1967 | Truman |
| 8. Harold Burton | U.S. Senator | 1945-1958 | Truman |
| 9. Robert Jackson | U.S. Attorney General | 1941-1954 | F. Roosevelt |
| 10. James Francis Byrnes | U.S. Senator | 1941-1942 | F. Roosevelt |
| 11. William O. Douglas | Chairman of the S.E.C. | 1939-1975 | F. Roosevelt |
| 12. Felix Frankfurter | Asst. U.S. Attorney, Asst. Secretary of War, | ||
| Prof. of Law at Harvard | 1939-1962 | F. Roosevelt | |
| 13. Stanley Forman Reed | U.S. Solicitor General | 1938-1957 | F. Roosevelt |
| 14. Owen Josephus Roberts | Special Counsel in “Teapot Dome” investigation and trials | 1930-1945 | Hoover |
| 15. Harlan Fiske Stone | U.S. Attorney General | 1925-1946 | Coolidge (Assoc., 1925), |
| F. Roosevelt (Chief, 1941) | |||
| 16. Pierce Butler | County Attorney, Private Practice | 1923-1939 | Harding |
| 17. George Sutherland | U.S. Senator | 1922-1938 | Harding |
| 18. Louis Brandeis | Private Practice | 1916-1939 | Wilson |
| 19. James Clark McReynolds | U.S. Attorney General | 1914-1941 | Wilson |
| 20. Charles Evans Hughes | Governor of New York, | ||
| U.S. Secretary of State | 1910-1916, | ||
| 1930-1941 | Taft (Assoc., 1910), | ||
| Hoover (Chief, 1930) | |||
| 21. William Henry Moody | U.S. Attorney General | 1906-1910 | T. Roosevelt |
| 22. George Shiras, Jr | Private Practice | 1892-1903 | Harrison |
| 23. Melville Fuller | Private Practice | 1888-1910 | Cleveland |
| 24. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar | U.S. Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Senator | 1888-1893 | Cleveland |
| 25. Joseph Philo Bradley | Private Practice | 1870-1892 | Grant |
| 26. Salmon P. Chase | U.S. Treasury Secretary | 1864-1873 | Lincoln |