Obama administration sides with Vatican in Oregon case [John Allen]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Code: 
In a strongly worded brief for the United States Supreme Court, the Obama administration has sided with the Vatican in an Oregon lawsuit that names the Holy See as a defendant for its role in the sexual abuse crisis.

In effect, the brief asserts that the standards for an exception to the immunity that foreign governments enjoy under American law have not been met in the Oregon case.

Filed on Friday, the brief stops short of recommending that the Supreme Court directly take up the case of *Doe v. Holy See*, originally filed in federal district court in Oregon in 2002. Instead, it suggests that the Supreme Court set aside the 2009 ruling of an appeals court that allowed the case to go forward, sending it back for further consideration.
More…
 
i’m shocked and wonder why the administration would do this ~ does anyone know?
 
Onyx88 said:
i’m shocked and wonder why the administration would do this ~ does anyone know?
Click to expand...
This is the same argument that the administration was pilloried on this forum for making in the 9/11 cases, except in that case the defendant was Saudi Arabia. They make the argument because its the law that sovereign nations are immune from suit - issues between nations must be dealt with nation to nation by the executive. The argument is made to protect the role of the executive in foreign policy, and similar arguments have been made by most adminstrations in recent history (with respect to various countries, not necessarily the Vatican.)
 
TMC said:
This is the same argument that the administration was pilloried on this forum for making in the 9/11 cases, except in that case the defendant was Saudi Arabia. They make the argument because its the law that sovereign nations are immune from suit - issues between nations must be dealt with nation to nation by the executive. The argument is made to protect the role of the executive in foreign policy, and similar arguments have been made by most adminstrations in recent history (with respect to various countries, not necessarily the Vatican.)
Click to expand...
Explain to me then how Slobodan Milosevich got tried in the Hague? He was a Head of State.
 
If Obama would have allowed this, many Americans would find themselves extradicted to face politically motivated charges throughout the world.Why do you think the US does not recognize the authority of the World Court?Pure and understandable self-interest.I believe that W is under indictment in Germany or the Netherlands for "War Crimes"Do you honestly think any sitting president would allow another president to be extradicted for “trial”.THAT is the only reason Obama acted as he did.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Explain to me then how Slobodan Milosevich got tried in the Hague? He was a Head of State.
Click to expand...
Milosevich was not incumbent at the time of his arrest. The case against him at the Hague was pending at the time of his death i.e. by law, he died an innocent man because the case did not end with a conviction for war crimes.
 
Maybe the Vatican should hold a trial for all the babies that have been murdered and name the white house, congress and supreme court as defendants.
 
Soutane said:
If Obama would have allowed this, many Americans would find themselves extradicted to face politically motivated charges throughout the world.Why do you think the US does not recognize the authority of the World Court?Pure and understandable self-interest.I believe that W is under indictment in Germany or the Netherlands for "War Crimes"Do you honestly think any sitting president would allow another president to be extradicted for “trial”.THAT is the only reason Obama acted as he did.
Click to expand...
No, it is not so “personal” as that. If the Vatican can be dragged into a state court in the United States, so also could the United States be dragged into some local foreign court. The President does not want our sovereign immunity compromised, and does not want his executive privilege, which is the sole means by which we deal with foreign governments, to be diminished in any way.
 
SEBASTIANMARTIN said:
Maybe the Vatican should hold a trial for all the babies that have been murdered and name the white house, congress and supreme court as defendants.
Click to expand...
So, you do not believe in sovereign immunity for our country. Odd, because it’s one of the strong points of conservatism.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
No, it is not so “personal” as that. If the Vatican can be dragged into a state court in the United States, so also could the United States be dragged into some local foreign court. The President does not want our sovereign immunity compromised, and does not want his executive privilege, which is the sole means by which we deal with foreign governments, to be diminished in any way.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s in the public interest to oppose this. I’m sure if you asked these same people if African nations should be able to sue America for slavery, or Canada to sue for the burning of York, or the Japanese to sue for the atomic bombs they would give an absolute no for answer. They truly don’t have any idea what kind of can of worms this would open.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
No, it is not so “personal” as that. If the Vatican can be dragged into a state court in the United States, so also could the United States be dragged into some local foreign court. The President does not want our sovereign immunity compromised, and does not want his executive privilege, which is the sole means by which we deal with foreign governments, to be diminished in any way.
Click to expand...
That is basically what I said.The US does not recognise the authority of ANY out side body over her.Nor do we.
 
curlycool89 said:
Exactly. It’s in the public interest to oppose this. I’m sure if you asked these same people if African nations should be able to sue America for slavery, or Canada to sue for the burning of York, or the Japanese to sue for the atomic bombs they would give an absolute no for answer. They truly don’t have any idea what kind of can of worms this would open.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the claims of United Empire Loyalists who fled to Canada and were subsequently dispossed of all legal right to property in the the new USA.
 
Soutane said:
Not to mention the claims of United Empire Loyalists who fled to Canada and were subsequently dispossed of all legal right to property in the the new USA.
Click to expand...
Aye. 225 years of interest racking up wouldn’t come cheap either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top