Catholic bishop: I changed from Democrat to Republican after ‘awful’ 2012 Democratic Convention

[Ridgerunner]

That is true but where were they in 2000-2006 when they had control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency?

Seems to me the Dems fired them up a little.

They did not have control of the Supreme Court. You surely know that. And you surely know that Repubs in the House and Senate, even with a Repub president, could not overturn a Supreme Court ruling like Roe vs. Wade. All they could do was appoint prolife justices, which is exactly what they did.

The Dems have supported abortion on demand clear back to the day when I finally decided I could no longer hold office in the party. And that was a long time ago.

Every Repub appointee to the Court is prolife except Kennedy, and even Kennedy voted to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. Every Dem appointee to the Court, without exception, is pro-abortion, and not one of them voted to ban partial birth abortion.

 

[ProVobis]

Blackmun, Burger, Brennan, Stewart and Powell all appointed by Rupublicans and all decided in favor of Roe v Wade.

White, appointed by JFK dissented.

This is true. In addition Nixon was on record in support of abortions in cases of rape and interracial sex.

 

[scipio337]

That is true but where were they in 2000-2006 when they had control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency?

Seems to me the Dems fired them up a little.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Which party opposed these? I’ll give you two guesses!

 

[ProVobis]

That information is deceiving however.

Actually it was worse when one considers Reagan got the ball rolling towards Roe vs Wade by signing a pro-abortion law when he was governor of California. One can only wish he hadn’t done that.

 

[ProVobis]

That information is deceiving however. The fact is that 100% of Democrat appointed Supreme Court Justices since Roe v. Wade became law of the land have upheld that evil ruling. At least some Republican appointees have been good on the abortion issue since the 1973 ruling.

Republican appointees have controlled SCOTUS since 1973. Do you honestly think they will overturn themselves unconditionally?

BTW, thanks to Democrat Senators, Justices Scalia and Thomas were confirmed to the S.C. Some to their own political doom. (Dixon of Illinois, for example.)

 

[scipio337]

Actually it was worse when one considers Reagan got the ball rolling towards Roe vs Wade by signing a pro-abortion law when he was governor of California. One can only wish he hadn’t done that.

One can’t deny that Reagans actions led to more abortions in California. A good article outlining those events here:

nationalreview.com/articles/223437/reagans-darkest-hour/paul-kengor

And yet, instituted the first Mexico City Policy, defunding US dollars for “family planning”. Which party has consitently opposed such policies?

I’ll give you two guesses!

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Kagan was also vetted and approved by NARAL. Planned Parenthood endorsed her. Is there really anything more to know?

NARAL opposed both Roberts and Alito. What did they know that you find difficult to accept?..

But if one looks at the decision on the partial birth abortion ban, every Repub appointee, even including the otherwise disappointing Kennedy, upheld the ban. Every Dem appointee voted to strike down partial birth abortion bans.

The two new Obama appointees were not involved in that ruling. I suspect you are more than likely correct that they would vote to uphold abortion rights. However, we do not know that for certain until they rule on something. I believe Kagan has publicly stated she’s in favor of “women’s health issues” so I think the Dems can count on her to uphold abortion on demand. Sotomayer is more of an unknown…despite the endorsement of NARAL.

There isn’t all that much room to suspect Roberts or Alito of supporting abortion on demand, certainly none with Thomas or Scalia.

I don’t know about Roberts. As far as I know he’s only as good as Kennedy. The only abortion ruling involving Roberts, Kennedy happened to be on the right side. So for all we know, he’s as wishy-washy as Kennedy. Lest we forget that Roberts joined the Dem appointees to uphold Obamacare. I’ve got more hope for Alito since he rejected Obamacare. I understand one doesn’t necessarily equate to another. But that’s a trend I spot and I watch Roberts cautiously. I guess what I’m saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts disappoint when it came to reversing Roe v. Wade. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

There is absolutely no room at all to even imagine that a Democrat appointee will be anything other than pro-abortion.

You may be right. As I stated in a post just prior. 100% of Democrat appointments to the Supreme Court have upheld abortion rights since Roe v. Wade became law of the land.

I will not vote Democrat until it is proven that the appointments are on the right side of issues. Even though Obama’s appointments haven’t been tested in this regard, I would not advise trusting that they might overturn that diabolical ruling.

With that said, we’ll just have to wait and see how the Obama appointments would rule, if they are given that opportunity to do so.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Actually it was worse when one considers Reagan got the ball rolling towards Roe vs Wade by signing a pro-abortion law when he was governor of California. One can only wish he hadn’t done that.

Reagan did however get at least one of his three Supreme Court appointments correct though. 33% rating is better than 0% rating for all Democrats elected since Roe v. Wade became law of the land.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Republican appointees have controlled SCOTUS since 1973. Do you honestly think they will overturn themselves unconditionally?

Yes, actually. Of course it depends on what Republican appointees you are referring to. Scalia and Thomas types would overturn it in a heartbeat I believe.

 

[ProVobis]

Reagan did however get at least one of his three Supreme Court appointments correct though. 33% rating is better than 0% rating for all Democrats elected since Roe v. Wade became law of the land.

Fair enough, except it is to be noted that Scalia received unanimous confirmation by the Senate. I have a feeling Borg (or perhaps a different candidate) would have fared better had Reagan not played politics with his nomination.

 

[Brendan_64]

If a bishop were to be a regsitered member of a tennis club, would he be endosring the game of tennis?

Bishops are entitled to opinions and free time activities as much as anybody else. As long as they make clear when they are acting as a bishop and when they are acting in private capacity, I see no need for restrictions on what they can or cannot do, as long as its nothing immoral or contrary to Church teachings.

It’s not the same as belonging to a tennis club though. A tennis club does not espouse particular values as the right values for society, political parties do.

A bishop being publicly associated with a particular political party might send a message to some of his flock that that particular party’s views are somehow closer to the views of the Church than the others

Being a member of a tennis club is hardly likely to have people saying, “Playing tennis must be a good thing to do and must be in line with Church teaching, because our bishop is a member of a tennis club”?

The clergy should, in mu opinion, not publicly associate themselves with political parties, because this can send a message to their flock.

 

[livingwordunity]

Kagan was also vetted and approved by NARAL. Planned Parenthood endorsed her. Is there really anything more to know?

NARAL opposed both Roberts and Alito. What did they know that you find difficult to accept?

As Eisenhower regretted later after appointing Earl Warren, appointees can disappoint. But it’s a total certainty that Democrat appointees are going to be abortion supporters. Possibly less certain that Repub appointees are going to be prolife.

But if one looks at the decision on the partial birth abortion ban, every Repub appointee, even including the otherwise disappointing Kennedy, upheld the ban. Every Dem appointee voted to strike down partial birth abortion bans.

There isn’t all that much room to suspect Roberts or Alito of supporting abortion on demand, certainly none with Thomas or Scalia. There is absolutely no room at all to even imagine that a Democrat appointee will be anything other than pro-abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

With that said, we’ll just have to wait and see how the Obama appointments would rule, if they are given that opportunity to do so.

I’m not sure we’ll see for a long, long time. The Supremes vote on the cases they’ll take, and the Chief Justice has some control of that. Right now, there’s no possibility at all that Roe will be overturned, because Kennedy will join the democrats in upholding it. So the prolife justices aren’t going to be too quick to take up such a case.

The next appointment or two to the Court will determine it.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know about Roberts. As far as I know he’s only as good as Kennedy. The only abortion ruling involving Roberts, Kennedy happened to be on the right side. So for all we know, he’s as wishy-washy as Kennedy. Lest we forget that Roberts joined the Dem appointees to uphold Obamacare. I’ve got more hope for Alito since he rejected Obamacare. I understand one doesn’t necessarily equate to another. But that’s a trend I spot and I watch Roberts cautiously. I guess what I’m saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts disappoint when it came to reversing Roe v. Wade. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

There certainly are a lot of moving parts where legal and constitutional issues are concerned. Justices may influence one another, for one thing. Individual ideologies can always change, for another. Roberts may have found reason to side against Obamacare if there were one more vote in that direction. The Chief Justice has a role to play other than just being a Justice, especially this Court. He would like decisions on unconstitutionality of bills not made on a 5-4 basis; better on a 6-3 or 7-2 basis. (More stability, for one thing.) At least that’s the impression I get from watching C-Span and PBS. They made pretty good arguments in that direction anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, actually. Of course it depends on what Republican appointees you are referring to. Scalia and Thomas types would overturn it in a heartbeat I believe.

So far, they have let a lot of state limitations on abortion go unchallenged and that says a lot right there. (The whole idea behind Roe vs Wade was that states had no right to restrict abortions at certain levels.) If they overturn Roe vs Wade, the issue would go back to the states, or at least that’s what many believe. So in some sense Roe vs Wade is being overturned albeit slowly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There certainly are a lot of moving parts where legal and constitutional issues are concerned. Justices may influence one another, for one thing. Individual ideologies can always change, for another. Roberts may have found reason to side against Obamacare if there were one more vote in that direction. The Chief Justice has a role to play other than just being a Justice, especially this Court. He would like decisions on unconstitutionality of bills not made on a 5-4 basis; better on a 6-3 or 7-2 basis. (More stability, for one thing.) At least that’s the impression I get from watching C-Span and PBS. They made pretty good arguments in that direction anyway.

A possibly more troubling thing about the general nature of Supreme Courts is that they bargain with each other and do “swaps”, at least within limits. I will never know, of course, unless some Supreme writes a “tell all” book, but I am at least somewhat inclined to the view that Roberts “got” something for his calling the Obamacare penalty a “tax”. One hopes that something is an understanding that there will be at least one Supreme who will favorably view the various suits about conscience protection engendered by Obamacare.

 

[livingwordunity]

Probably seeing most of the people around him at the 2012 DNC convention denying God three times had an influence on this bishop’s decision to leave the Democrat party.

 

[CaptFun]

I personally don’t understand any clergy being registered with any political party. It sort of seems like a conflict of interest (although, like many of us, there might be areas of disagreement, his registration could be perceived as an endorsement of that party’s platform).

Considering this thread is in the “Catholic News” forum, vice the “World News” forum (where discussion of the merits of particular politicians and political parties is allowed), I think I’ll leave my comments at that.

That is an interesting point. As the Church leaders impress upon us the importance of voting (versus abandoning the field) … it would seem they’d feel that they had to register to vote some which way. And registering independent leaves the nomination process of the major parties off limits in some states – which would be halving one’s influence.

Probably the Bishop had been low key about his registration to date. But this switch does allow him to shepherd his flock with a warning that is widely dispersed. There may be consequences for his diocese for this stand … but if his stand is principled (versus say, grandstanding for headlines - which I don’t think it is) doing so is also courageous.

By and large Bishops should teach the Gospel. Which would include speaking out against the major sins threatening the flock. These days one sees a political party endorsing the sinful things and even promoting them. Which would put a Bishop at odds with that group, without him specifically declaring war on the group. It seems that this Bishop tried to do that until (as he explains) circumstances warranted a public stand.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Bishop Thomas Tobin: Why I Switched to the Republican Party (282)

The shepherd of Providence, R.I., believes that his baptismal certificate is more important than partisan political loyalties.

by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND 08/22/2013 Comment

Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., sparked headlines after he told a local group of Young Republicans Aug. 13 that he had ended his long-affiliation with the Democratic Party and had recently joined the Republican Party.

“The ah-ha moment for me was the 2012 Democratic Party Convention. It was just awful,” Bishop Tobin told the GOP gathering, while noting that he had been a Democrat since 1969. “I just said that I can’t be associated structurally with that group, in terms of abortion and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and [the] same-sex marriage agenda and cultural destruction I saw going on.”

In an Aug. 21 interview with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond, Bishop Tobin discussed his decision to change his party affiliation, his belief that his baptismal certificate matters more than partisan loyalties, and his past efforts to engage self-identified Catholic politicians like Patrick Kennedy.

 

[Ender]

I personally don’t understand any clergy being registered with any political party. It sort of seems like a conflict of interest (although, like many of us, there might be areas of disagreement, his registration could be perceived as an endorsement of that party’s platform).

The problem I see with the bishop’s action is that is more likely to be perceived as a political stand than a moral one. If he wants to make a moral point he needs to address the problem of prominent people acting immorally; that point is not made by criticizing politicians for making bad political choices.

He already has the proper means of making that point which requires nothing more of him than to follow canon law and deny communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.” Had he done that as a Democrat his action would have been seen in its proper perspective as fulfilling his moral obligation. If he does it now it will be seen (and surely portrayed) as nothing more than political payback.

Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Leo XIII

Just so. Your signature line identifies the problem.

Ender