Death Penalty: Applause for Rick Perry’s ‘Ultimate Justice’ at Republican Debate

[exnihilo]

Well, the Democrats had one after the 2008 elections so I see no reason to concede that the Republicans can’t achieve the same thing.

If you understood these issues better you would perhaps come to a different conclusion. The Dems passed Obamacare solely because they had a fillibuster proof Senate and in fact the only reason it passed in its current form is because, before they had completed voting on it, they lost the Kennedy seat in the Senate to a Republican. They had no choice but to accept the version of the bill the Senate had already passed as they knew they would never get another chance to vote on it.

I’m a little confused by these two statements. The Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority when the passed Obamacare.

Or they can use the aggressive and contentious tactic, known as reconciliation, to pass a far-reaching health care bill in the Senate without having to face the GOP. Democrats lost their ability to block filibusters when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a Senate seat last month.

Both parties have used reconciliation rules in the past. But Republicans have practically dared Democrats to do so on health care, citing polls showing significant opposition to the legislation.

Source

As it turned out the Dems had no problem getting their agenda, which was opposed by a majority of Americans, through. But Republicans cant seem to ever get their campaign agenda passed. Apparently abortion is not important enough an issue to them to use these reconciliation rules on.

I love this argument. The side trying to do the right thing doesn’t deserve our help because they have so far failed to overcome the side doing the wrong thing. And why haven’t they overcome the obstacles yet? Because they don’t have enough help.

I reject that they have been unable to make substantive changes. They have had a majority of appointees on the court when abortion was made a right and in the 90s and the last decade and nothing changed. And surely they could have done things like defunded PP. If Obama can get Obamacare with funding for abortion passed with numbers no different than the Republicans had then what else can I conclude but the Republicans are incompetent or really dont care about this issue.

 

[gtrenewed]

I “love” (not) the political position that says, “while I personally would never counsel anyone to get an abortion, I cannot deny someone else the right to get one if they so choose.”

Or in other words, I will do or say whatever to get elected and stay elected.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to actually have a choice between candidates that say what they mean and truly let the majority decide. I suppose Ron Paul is the closest to that ideal and he is always dismissed as a non-viable candidate. Talk about “candidate abortion”.

To say that Republicans have never had a chance to challenge abortion in some meaningful way is naive at best. Also to dismiss all democrats as pro-choice is not fair.

We may not have that candidate but keep the faith … God is on our side and one will come forth that is electable. In the meantime we must continue to pray, raise our voice, and be strong in hope.

 

[MillTownCath]

I “love” (not) the political position that says, “while I personally would never counsel anyone to get an abortion, I cannot deny someone else the right to get one if they so choose.”

Or in other words, I will do or say whatever to get elected and stay elected.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to actually have a choice between candidates that say what they mean and truly let the majority decide. I suppose Ron Paul is the closest to that ideal and he is always dismissed as a non-viable candidate. Talk about “candidate abortion”.

To say that Republicans have never had a chance to challenge abortion in some meaningful way is naive at best. Also to dismiss all democrats as pro-choice is not fair.

We may not have that candidate but keep the faith … God is on our side and one will come forth that is electable. In the meantime we must continue to pray, raise our voice, and be strong in hope.

Also I think global and domestic poverty, as well as continuing to get coverage to the uninsured, shouldn’t be too far off the radar of a Catholic voter.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

That gives you the option of opening up a document that gives you that basics of what Catholics should take into consideration when voting.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

How come there aren’t more Catholics that run for president? I mean good Catholics, not Joe Biden-like Catholics.

 

[wondrousgnat]

An earlier post stated that pro-life is not currently an issue. A shame.
For years I have heard of the fault of the Germans for allowing the Nazi Holocaust. And they have had to live with that ever since. It was before my time but there was some controversy in it and people risked their lives in opposition. And the troops did their deead under the cover of darkness (Krystallnacht (sp?)). Near my house is an abortion clinic which runs freely in the light of day. In a strip mall.

At the end of WW2 General Eisenhauer rounded up the townspeople and made them look at what they allowed. Now a photo of an aborted people is ruled too offensive to those who will never look at the picture anyway.

Some 60,000,000 have been legally killed under Roe v Wade. Which can be more than those killed under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. We believe that there is God’s judgement on their countries for allowing it. Do you think God will pass judgement on America? Has He already started?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also I think global and domestic poverty, as well as continuing to get coverage to the uninsured, shouldn’t be too far off the radar of a Catholic voter.

I agree. Unfortuantely, the current administration and his party have done nothing for poverty, global or domestic, and seem to have succeeded in reducing the number who have health insurance coverage, promising more of same.

The only exception being that they have made it easier and less expensive for the poor and others to abort their children.

So it would seem the Catholic’s radar should lock onto this administration and that party and send a massive array of “no confidence” votes at them until they are utterly powerless.

 

[Bill_Samuel]

I will not comment on the intricacies of the Catholic official position, but will try to address the question itself.

There is a Catholic consistent life ethic independent candidate running for President - Joe Schriner.

Republican candidate for President Ron Paul opposes both abortion and the death penalty, and also is strongly anti-war. He is pretty far from Catholic social teaching on social justice issues, however.

For other offices, there are from time to time consistent life ethic candidates running on the Democratic or Green Party lines (although both parties are pro-choice, not all of their candidates are). Some Republican candidates who are pro-life also oppose the death penalty, but most don’t.

Probably the most prominent consistent life ethic officeholder in my lifetime was Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR), who recently died. He was an evangelical Protestant. You just don’t seem to see politicians of his caliber anymore.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will not comment on the intricacies of the Catholic official position, but will try to address the question itself.

There is a Catholic consistent life ethic independent candidate running for President - Joe Schriner.

Republican candidate for President Ron Paul opposes both abortion and the death penalty, and also is strongly anti-war. He is pretty far from Catholic social teaching on social justice issues, however.

For other offices, there are from time to time consistent life ethic candidates running on the Democratic or Green Party lines (although both parties are pro-choice, not all of their candidates are). Some Republican candidates who are pro-life also oppose the death penalty, but most don’t.

Probably the most prominent consistent life ethic officeholder in my lifetime was Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR), who recently died. He was an evangelical Protestant. You just don’t seem to see politicians of his caliber anymore.

It’s always a little difficult to truly comprehend the teachings of a church that is not one’s own, and to know how they might apply to a particular candidate, adequate to advise members of that church.

The death penalty is not prohibited by the teachings of the Catholic Church. So, to say that Catholics must opt for “consistent life ethic candidates”, which you characterize at least some Democrats and Greens as being, is simply based on an erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching.

No particular political position necessarily fits the Catholic teachings on “social justice”, though some do better than others. “Social justice” is not a party position or ideology, but a practical results-based concept. Opinions differ on the mechanisms of bringing about those results, and Catholics are free to make their own informed judgments about whether, e.g., Ron Paul’s positions would or would not result in a greater degree of “social justice” than those of someone else. (and no, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter)

This Joe Schiner of whom you speak, and who you characterize as one for whom Catholics might vote, might be a fine fellow. Likely there will be a number of fine fellows who will want to run for president. But it may be difficult for one who is not Catholic to realize that Catholic teachings are results-oriented, and going off into idiosyncratic fantasies in exercising one’s moral duty to act politically, is not taught by the Church.

When it comes to abortion, however, the Catholic Church definitely opposes it along with all measures that aid or abet it.

 

[Bill_Samuel]

Is it barbaric that a “civilized country” sends 18 year old young men and women to afghanistan?

I see on here time and time again that everyone who supports the death penalty is prochoice. That is FALSE.

I support the death penalty. I am against abortion.

The OFFICIAL TEACHING of the catholic church is that the death penalty may be imposed on heinous crimes. If prison truly rehabilitated criminals, why do they REOFFEND?

If I would have been in the crowd, I would have been on my feet clapping at Rick Perry’s statements!

Yes it is barbaric that the U.S. sends its finest young men and women to kill and be killed - in Afghanistan or anywhere.

And it is barbaric to kill people to show that killing people is wrong. The Catholic hierarchy actively works against the death penalty, and they’re right.

This country has a love affair with killing - war, abortion, death penalty. The church needs to be a prophetic witness against the death policies.

 

[estesbob]

Yes it is barbaric that the U.S. sends its finest young men and women to kill and be killed - in Afghanistan or anywhere.

And it is barbaric to kill people to show that killing people is wrong. The Catholic hierarchy actively works against the death penalty, and they’re right.

This country has a love affair with killing - war, abortion, death penalty. The church needs to be a prophetic witness against the death policies.

The Pope made it clear that neither War or the Death penalty rise to the level of abortion. In fact he said Catholics could in good conscience support both the decision to wage war and the imposition of the death penalty

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes it is barbaric that the U.S. sends its finest young men and women to kill and be killed - in Afghanistan or anywhere.

And it is barbaric to kill people to show that killing people is wrong. The Catholic hierarchy actively works against the death penalty, and they’re right.

This country has a love affair with killing - war, abortion, death penalty. The church needs to be a prophetic witness against the death policies.

As a member of what you characterize as an “emerging” Christian group, perhaps you can be instrumental in moulding it to fit your own views of what this country is and what “prophetic witness” is or ought to be. Consequently, one might wonder why you are here on a Catholic site when there may be much shepherding to be done among your own, and time’s-a-wasting.

The Catholic Church has its own teachings, and one should not expect it to conform itself to the views of one who does not accept its teachings in the first place.

 

[Bill_Samuel]

But they don’t get locked up for life. They are often freed early, paroled, and they very very
often REOFFEND!

With the straight death penalty, prisoners may be paroled. But not with death without parole, which an increasing number of states have made an option.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The Republican party, the Tea Party and conservative talk show hosts are really not helping in the pro-life movement. They rarely make a noncommital comment like “we don’t support abortion” which means there is no real opposition.

Today there are about 1,500,000 abortions every year in merica alone. It seems as though we have a lost cause. But I have picketed abortion clinics. Some people arrive for abortions and get talked out of it. I have been suspicious of some cars that slow down then pass by (maybe they are rethinking heir decision). One time a clinic employee asked us to pray for her so that she could get a different job not in the abortion industry. She quit a few days later.

Sadly, we are not coming close to putting an end to abortion. But if we keep active we will be saving one baby, one life at a time.

I urge to you participate in 40 Days for Life. It is not picketing, no signs except those with the name of the event or “We’re praying for you” are allowed. No shouting, no graphic materials. It is a prayerful vigil and fast in front of abortion clinics worldwide.

It starts tomorrow.

40 Days for Life

 

[Hastrman]

Well, I don’t care, since I am not pro-life. I do not indulge in unreflective fetishization of the fact of living as such, and the unreflective tabooing of all killing as such.

I’m anti-murder. Abortion is murder. The death penalty isn’t.

I know, that’s really complicated and difficult to understand. I mean, it took me all of two seconds’ thought to formulate it.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

I dont quite follow. There is a single candidate who is in word and historical voting acts consistently against abortion and war and who has strong reservations about the death penalty because of the many people wrongly convicted and you then go to opposition to FEMA to find fault?

I “love” (not) the political position that says, “while I personally would never counsel anyone to get an abortion, I cannot deny someone else the right to get one if they so choose.”

Or in other words, I will do or say whatever to get elected and stay elected.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to actually have a choice between candidates that say what they mean and truly let the majority decide. I suppose Ron Paul is the closest to that ideal and he is always dismissed as a non-viable candidate. Talk about “candidate abortion”.

To say that Republicans have never had a chance to challenge abortion in some meaningful way is naive at best. Also to dismiss all democrats as pro-choice is not fair.

We may not have that candidate but keep the faith … God is on our side and one will come forth that is electable. In the meantime we must continue to pray, raise our voice, and be strong in hope.

I think there are so many people out there that are trying to find the “perfect” politician and overlooking the fact that (like our clergy) they are just as human, just as flawed, and just as likely to disappoint you as anyone else. I support Ron Paul because his political entity is that which most closely resembles what I want to see out of a politician and his pro-life stance is the most commensurate with my Catholic beliefs. The first quote above was a response to a person who seemed to want to knitpick over what they saw as a less than “perfect” politician, behavior such as this leads to apathy because you’re only setting yourself up to be disappointed.

And I don’t play into the Republican-Democrat, Left-Right, liberal-conservative, etc paradigms. I know plenty on both sides who have played all sides at one time or another, I have a good friend who is a State Senator in Illinois who happens to be a Democrat and a good friend of Barack Obama. He is one of the most staunch Catholics I know and puts his faith in front of his office, even if it costs him politically. Don’t decide your political ideals based on labels or else you’re no better than those who opposed Jesus in his time.

Food for thought on Ron Paul, THE ONLY TRUE Pro-Life Candidate: youtube.com/watch?v=fqZF8kspzfw

 

[Ender]

I’m a little confused by these two statements. The Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority when the passed Obamacare.

It takes 60 votes to overturn a filibuster and there were 60 Democrats in the Senate for the first two years of Obama’s presidency. The House passed one version of Obamacare and the Senate passed a different version, but before they could work out a joint bill Senator Kennedy died and his seat was won by a Republican. This left the Democrats with only one choice: the House had to accept the Senate version of the bill unchanged as the Senate would never get to vote on the bill again because the Democrats had lost their filibuster proof control.

As it turned out the Dems had no problem getting their agenda, which was opposed by a majority of Americans, through. But Republicans cant seem to ever get their campaign agenda passed. Apparently abortion is not important enough an issue to them to use these reconciliation rules on.

The Democrats were successful BECAUSE THEY HAD A FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE. The Republicans have not had that kind of control.

I reject that they have been unable to make substantive changes.

You reject this but you haven’t identified any substantive change they could have made.

If Obama can get Obamacare with funding for abortion passed with numbers no different than the Republicans had then what else can I conclude but the Republicans are incompetent or really dont care about this issue.

The third possibility is that you don’t understand how the Senate actually works. The reality is that without 60 votes no controversial bill can pass the Senate. The Republicans have not had that kind of majority and the Democrats have.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

, I have a good friend who is a State Senator in Illinois who happens to be a Democrat and a good friend of Barack Obama. He is one of the most staunch Catholics I know and puts his faith in front of his office, even if it costs him politically.

Does Obama know your friend didnt vote for him? Did your Friend tell Obama why he couldnt vote for him?

 

[exnihilo]

The third possibility is that you don’t understand how the Senate actually works. The reality is that without 60 votes no controversial bill can pass the Senate. The Republicans have not had that kind of majority and the Democrats have.

I’ll admit to not being an expert on the US Senate. The actual methods those creeps use to accomplish their evil is not a great concern for me.

But I think you are wrong about the facts and sequence of events in a way that is convenient to the belief that Republicans want to end abortion but just never have enough Republicans to do it. I’ll provide the evidence in subsequent replies to your comment.

It takes 60 votes to overturn a filibuster and there were 60 Democrats in the Senate for the first two years of Obama’s presidency.

It takes 60 votes to END a filibuster. But a filibuster is not some magic panacea whereby 41 senators can guarantee a bill will not be voted on. And that is all a filibuster is. It stops all senate work while a speaker talks. Of course the speaker will eventually stop talking. He’ll have to go to the bathroom for instance. And anyway the senate devised a strategy to prevent filibusters from having any real power. They created ‘reconciliation’.

The Health Care bill passed in March of 2010. Senator Brown was sworn in Feb 4 2010, before the passage. And this was halfway into the first Congress under Obama. So no, the Dems did not have 60 votes the first two years. And by there were actually only ever 58 Dems. Two independent senators caucused with the Dems.

Here is a good article about the limited power of filibusters.

Filibusters, Cloture, and Lazy Senators

The House passed one version of Obamacare and the Senate passed a different version, but before they could work out a joint bill Senator Kennedy died and his seat was won by a Republican. This left the Democrats with only
one choice: the House had to accept the Senate version of the bill unchanged as the Senate would never get to vote on the bill again because the Democrats had lost their filibuster proof control.

This is not an accurate description of how it was passed. The bill was passed with only 59 senators caucusing with the Democrats.

From the USA Today article dated March 23, 2010, which is AFTER Sen. Brown was sworn in:

A day after jubilant House Democrats pushed through historic legislation to extend health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, President Obama turned his attention Monday to getting a companion bill through the Senate and selling the benefits to the public.

You can see the bill was first passed in the House and then the Senate had to approve it.

Source

For a more detailed explanation for how this bill was actually passed I suggest this article:

How the Health Care Bill Passed – In Plain English

Budget reconciliation maneuvers only need to be passed by a majority in the US Senate – and are protected from being filibustered. The Democrats are incorrectly using a budget reconciliation bill in order to avoid having their desired changes blocked by a Republican filibuster in the US Senate.

Schoolhouse Rock certainly made things seem simpler – and less blatantly corrupt and conniving!

The Democrats were successful BECAUSE THEY HAD A FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE. The Republicans have not had that kind of control.
You reject this but you haven’t identified any substantive change they could have made.
The third possibility is that you don’t understand how the Senate actually works. The reality is that without 60 votes no controversial bill can pass the Senate. The Republicans have not had that kind of majority and the Democrats have.

From the last source:

The Republicans have used many of the same tactics when they have been in power.

Republicans have used the same tactic to push through tax cuts. So I think I have conclusively shown that it does not take a filibuster proof majority to pass controversial laws. Having proven that the excuse that Republicans do not have a filibuster proof majority and therefore can not do away with abortion or at least defund Planned Parenthood is shown to be not true.

 

[Contarini]

As a member of what you characterize as an “emerging” Christian group, perhaps you can be instrumental in moulding it to fit your own views of what this country is and what “prophetic witness” is or ought to be. Consequently, one might wonder why you are here on a Catholic site when there may be much shepherding to be done among your own, and time’s-a-wasting.

The Catholic Church has its own teachings, and one should not expect it to conform itself to the views of one who does not accept its teachings in the first place.

But what he’s saying is a lot more in conformity with what your hierarchy says than your own position appears to be!

What is he saying that is contrary to Catholic teaching?

And why are you so rude to someone who is expressing appreciation for the teaching of your Church?

Edwin