Brad said:
It might interest some of our Catholics who feel such kinship with Evangelicals to know that on several websites, Evangelicals were encouraged, at the time of John Paul II’s death, to witness to Catholics to show them that salvation did not lie in the Pope or any priest, however good they might have been, and to show them the “true” biblical way of salvation so that Catholics might be saved and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Yes. I can read the document. The whole case for using the 8th amendment was built using international opinion and law.
You owe Catholics the truth, not me. You are the one pushing an agenda against Dobson and Mohler. I have an agenda against judicial activism. I agree with Dobson’s comments and actions in this regard, which are are in no way contrary to the Church. This thread isn’t about singing the praises about Dobson. You owe Catholics the truth about the agenda you support. You obviously support same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. That is what I’m fighting against. Don’t call yourself a Catholic while supporting this nonsense and use condemnation of Dobson as a cover. Aligning him with an anti-Catholic agenda is a sin my friend. You don’t know the man.
Nonsense. Dobson is an Evangelical and his faith is definitely anti-Catholic regardless how little he might be pushing their agenda.
What’s you’re point?
It’s not disingenous. I’m not sure which leaders you speak of but most of them have done exhaustive research on the topic, many dedicating good portions of their lives to it. It has been analyzed in a way that is anything but simple. Just for starters:
Scalia doesn’t go to Nigeria or other human-rights abusing countries searching for some remote opinion or law that supports his pre-conveived opionion so that law can be modified or establilshed. He looks at the Constitution, US laws, and original intent, which included the historical foundation of the country, to determine if a law violates constitutional rights. Kennedy, as quoted above, made extensive use of international opinions and laws to justify “using” the 8th amendment. The United States of America was created uniquely for a reason. Our intent should be to keep it unique.
Absolutely not. What happens when a law is passed or a law exists that a special interest group doesn’t like? They immediately look for a sympathetic court to change the results of the law. If that isn’t activism, I don’t know what is.
Ummm. Ok. I understand how judges are supposed to interpret the law. What is vague about prayer in school, the 10 commandments in a courtroom, abortion, or marriage?
The issue here isn’t to get rid of judges or change their job description. The issue is having judges that will perform their job just as you laid out. There are judges than insist on being activists rather than judges. That IS the problem. We aren’t against the 3rd branch of the government. We are against the 3rd branch of the government claiming superiority over the the other 2 branches. They don’t have this superiority if they do there job exactly as you have laid out.
It doesn’t. Tell me where it says it says step by step in the Constitution that judges should strike down laws passed by congress or force congress to modify laws. This, in effect, makes laws. That is the problem at hand. The Constitution certainly gives them no such authority. In fact, it explicitly gives the other branches authority that the judicial branch does not have but yet where it stumbles into constantly.
You are admitting that judges have acted outside their role in several cases and that there are remedies. This is what I am seeking - the remedies. Roe V. Wade was not concerned with facts of the states’ laws. Why does it still stand today? I’m not saying the issue lies only with the judges themselves. But some judges being allowed to operate outside of their authority IS the problem. Diversity of judges is not diverse enough which subsquently explains why layers of appeals is not a solution. Personal judicial philosphies are heavily skewed to the secularlistic mindset which is why Democrats are fighting tooth and nail not to disrupt this prevailing philosophy.
It is not a lashing out at the judiciary as a whole. It is a lashing out against those judicial activists that are determined to right what they feel is wrong about society and those that protect them.
This doesn’t make any sense. Christians have been complaining about this for a couple decades or more. It is only now that politicians are starting to listen. We are not being “used”. We are demanding action. You can even see this playing out as many Republicans get cold feet in addressing the issue.
Well, there you go. You are almost saying that judicial activism is ok as long as the “right” result is achieved. Well it may have been in this decision (although some may have good arguments against it), but it certainly hasn’t been in the many abortion cases, the case of Terri Schiavo and other disabled and elderly, and in the many of the marriage cases. Judges are not to determine what is “right”. They are to determine what the law says is right. The people determine this through their representatives.
You’re doing a pretty poor job yourself attempting to hijack efforts to stop abortion and same-sex marriage. Obviously Mohler thinks the Catholic Church is not the truth. I don’t think the Southern Baptist Church is the truth. But none of that has anything to do with this thread.
By the way, the above from Roper V. Simmons is another blatant example of activist philosophy being utilized by the high court. Are we to believe what? That all young peope are emotionally imbalanced and unstablel? That no middle aged or older people are emotionally imbalanced and unstable? And why is it that the court is not concerned about the emotional instability of a young person that would sneak off to get an abortion without telling their parents?
The Constitution gives the federal judiciary the power to hear “cases and controversies” that arise from federal law, including the Constititon. So if X says that Congress has passed a law violating his First Amendment rights, where does he bring his case for relief? To the federal courts. This has been settled for almost 200 years in a judicial decision (Marbury) that the President and Congress at the time reluctantly accepted because of political reasons, but even so, did accept it because they knew was the right answer.
The answer is substantive restraints, not only accepting judicial candidates with one philosophy. The philosophy conservative candidates embrace would solve the Roe problem, but (1) none of them have done anything about it so far, (2) would bring country backwards in time to 1789, and (3) disturb other areas of law like civil rights and protections for the poor The latter involves moral issues where the Catholic stance is clear. So, in effect, you are proposing a solution that is WAY too overbroad and also ineffective.
You are being used. You can ignore it if you want, but this entire scheme is just a political play for power. The leaders know that this play isn’t going to change the judiciary in any meaningful way. Its a way to rev up the Republican base and give certain leaders national exposure. By the way, I support neither party, just in case you think this is some liberal diatribe.
I do think judges interpreting the law is OK as long as they stay within certain substantive boundaries. This is the way the law has worked for 1000s of years. We can add substantive limits to deal with abortion and euthanasia. This restraints will work 100% of the time. Appointing judges with originialist or textualist philosophies will not and will instead also undermine other moral issues we care about.
I will address the rest when I have a moment. For the immediate time, I want to address this statement here. I do not think you are reading my posts very clearly. My position is that I want judicial activism to stop. I am not saying that what the Republicans are doing at this very moment is THE solution. I have made very clear on many posts here and elsewhere that neither Democrats nor Republicans are doing what they need to do at this time to fix the problem. So when you refer to us being used by “it”, I don’t know what you are referring to. When specific actions come up that should be supported, I support and make note of the. That doesn’t mean it is the be all and end all solution. So I’d appreciate if you drop the snide language while attempting to appear non-partisan. I’m working within the framework of the configuration of this country.
I’m not saying there should be no judicial review at all. I’m saying that judges should nor rule laws as unconstitutional when thay are really anti-what-the-judge-thinks-is-right. Like you said, Marbury started the ball rolling. We need to control the ball, slow it down and contain it. You are acting here as if any restraint on the judiciary would be bad. Only if you think the courts should be the supreme branch of government. Right now there are effectively no checks on the court. We have the right to perform checks that are not happening.
I agree there should be substantive restraints. I don’t agree that the country goes back to 1789 if non-“progressive” judges are selected, nor would the rights of the poor be violated. That is merely a liberal opinion and again, has little to do with how the government is supposed to act. We’ve all heard that you cannot force your opinion on someone else, right? Well, that is what is being done through the courts under the protection of liberal Democrats.
You are mixing and matching ideas to meet your philosophy. You cannot make up law as you go. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Judges put NO limits on abortion and therefore effectively made their own law overtop states that had severe limitations on abortion. Again, you think it is ok to find some international example to strke down or modify a law as long as it is right according to your philosophy. You have to admit to that reality. I’m largely opposed to the death penalty myself but that doesn’t mean I agree with how they arrived at the ruling.
I have read both. I quoted part of the decision in a prior post. It was an exhaustive effort to modify the current law by looking to current international opinion and law. It was this international opinion that deemed the death penalty cruel for “young” people without considering that the crime most certainly was more cruel. Why isn’t the 8th amendment invoked for babies in the womb? Is hacking up body parts not cruel?
Amazingly enough, I do expect the Congress to make ONLY laws that are constitutional. That is there job. They don’t create laws without considering the constitution and then roll the dice with the judges. An unconsitutional ruling should be a very rare event. The reason it is not rare is because activist judges use it to advance their agendas. If Congress is passing crazy laws, there is a remedy. The people elect someone else. If the courts strike down all laws that protect decency and morality, there is very little remedy for the average person. This is why it is called judical tyranny. Full power.
No. For the record, Justice Kennedy based the juvenile death penalty decision on the U.S. Constitution, not international law. He said that the international consensus against the death penalty for juveniles lent support to the national consensus - our national consensus - that had developed against it.
Your legal ignorance is showing. The principle of judicial review comes not from the Constitution, but from the holding in Marbury vs Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). No court or Congress since has tried to overrule that right of the courts to review laws for constitutionality.
And what of judicial activism from the right wing? I’ll not see you complaining about that, I’m sure.