S
- Status
C
CaptFun
Guest
Santorum’s potential challenge to the SCOTUS is an appeal to the Legislative Branch to pass better new law(s) on the subject at hand or possibly engage in more judicial review than it has in the past. Is it a little off topic per the specifics of the Pope’s potential encyclical “on climate change”?Santorum is such a flawed candidate that he could not even be elected dog catcher. He publicly announces that he will not follow decisions made by the SCOTUS that are contrary to his own belief system which would scare most thoughtful voters. The total abolition of ABC, which is the essence of Santorum’s campaign is so far out in left field that he makes himself irreverent.
Oh, well, valid enough considering Santorum is the first word of the thread – and he is advising SCOTUS similarly to advising Pope Francis (unofficially as a layman in both cases, if you will). That is, he is no longer a sitting Congressman or Senator yet has made a recommendation.I think it’s a refreshing point of view, and while such hasn’t been DONE much, maybe its time for Congress to flex its legislative muscle and exercise its rights (whether such legislation gets PASSED and approved or not, IMO). There’s precedent for previous SCOTUS’s being wrong and people continuing on with their belief systems (unto victory sometimes).
Precedent? The Dred Scott Decision Was Also Contrary to Some "Belief Systems"
The most famous incident of such that may be familiar to us would be the Dred Scott Decision (of the SCOTUS) which “decided” that runaway slaves who made it to free states were nonetheless property to be returned to their “owners”. It was later countermanded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and later by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
to those Congresses and Senates … possibly led by someone with conviction (not unlike Santorum at his best?).Oh, and
to an enlightened Administrative branch before that – and President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation – who also “did not follow that* decision made by a SCOTUS.*”**Judiciary Has Its Checks and Balances Too – In Theory If Not in Recent Practice
**
There are checks and balances in the American Governmental system. The Judiciary is co-equal to Legislative Branch (the congress Santorum is referring to) and the Administrative Branch (the presidency, cabinet, etc.) - not superior to them.
The three branches have their own sphere of influence Legislative (lawmaking, overseeing the administration through advise and consent, and approving judges and cabinet appointments), Administrative (administering the departments of the federal government, signing new laws into existence with congress, appointing judges), Judiciary (litigating court cases, defining the laws in practice).
C
captainrick
Guest
I wish the same - But the reason any politician makes any statement is always the same: to get VOTES!
P
Peebo
Guest
It seems that whenever the Pope makes statements on social issues that politicians and many others here in the US start huffing and puffing about how Pope Francis is advocating some sort of Socialist agenda…His Holiness is speaking as Head of the Catholic Church…and he addresses concerns to all nations of the world…not just the US…maybe Rick Santorum needs to concern himself about how or if global warming will impact American workers and not drag the Pope into American politics…I’m sure His Holiness also has other “pressing problems” throughout the world to worry about than whether he might upset some here in the US because of their political views
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That is a good thing. Similarly, the reason that a quarterback throws a ball is to get touchdowns.
J
JohnPaul
Guest
Is this climate change encyclical part of a larger strategy to appeal to those on the left so that they can eventually be converted? Or is Mr. Santorum correct?
We know that the great moral problem of the day is not climate change. Of the souls in hell right now, how many are there because they didn’t recycle? I would guess not many compared to those who were tricked by the devil in thinking that porn is no big deal; it’s okay to have unmarried relations; children are a burden; men should marry men; and, perhaps the greatest trick of all, that one is being judgmental if they even dare to speak these truths.
huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/07/rick-santorum-pope_n_7529166.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
We know that the great moral problem of the day is not climate change. Of the souls in hell right now, how many are there because they didn’t recycle? I would guess not many compared to those who were tricked by the devil in thinking that porn is no big deal; it’s okay to have unmarried relations; children are a burden; men should marry men; and, perhaps the greatest trick of all, that one is being judgmental if they even dare to speak these truths.
huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/07/rick-santorum-pope_n_7529166.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
I
ishii
Guest
No, gnjsdad, not specific enough at all, considering the extent to which you are attacking Rick Santorum.
The Church did not come out and declare the Iraq war unjust, did it? And I am not aware of the Church declaring that any Catholic who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to be considered immoral. Moreover, there is a difference morally between lives being lost in a war who were nonetheless not targeted, and the millions of lives killed intentionally through abortion. You need to brush up on Catholic moral teaching.
And your using the Indiana RFRA act to slam Rick Santorum is a joke.
So no, you haven’t at all answered the question I posed to you earlier:
What issue specifically does Santorum advocate that is remotely comparable in moral gravity to the culture of death supported by the Democratic party (Biden, Pelosi, et al). Be specific - don’t just throw out accusations of support for usury and predatory capitalism.
Keep trying, gnjs dad
Ishii
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The difference is easy. When Rick Santorum speaks out on climate change, he is not speaking as a representative of the Church. He is speaking out as a layperson giving his own opinion, and everyone knows that. When the Pope speaks out on climate change, even if he is speaking for himself, many people will interpret that to mean he is speaking authoritatively for the Church.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
sloth
lust
lust
greed
lust
It’s a good thing to express important deadly sins to avoid in this life. With that said, oftentimes, the focus is pretty much on lust (you list 3 of your 4 examples), and ignore other important sins to avoid such as wrath, pride, envy, and gluttony.
J
JimG
Guest
Anyone can express opinions on climate change. In so far as political and economic actions are recommended, it is politicians who are charged with the responsibility for weighing their public policy impact.
J
jinglebelle
Guest
The more pressing problem is always to make more money,ask the outriders
J
JohnPaul
Guest
Fair point.
The societal ills that I mentioned are plainly observable by measuring the following:
people regularly view porn
people who engage in unmarried relations
people who have had abortion or use contraception
gay ‘marriages’
But how many souls are in jeopardy for not protecting the environment?
R
Robyn_p
Guest
But why shouldn’t the Pope address this issue as Head of the Church? I think it’s about time a sane voice entered the discussion, which Pope Francis will provide. So far the topic has been dominated by anti-life rhetoric and propaganda, but it is an important topic. If the Church adds her voice into the mix officially and says “Yes, climate change is an issue we should be concerned about, yes we must take care of the earth. No, that doesn’t mean human beings are a threat that must be eliminated through population control” I can’t see anything wrong with that.
I for one am actually looking forward to the encyclical.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The seven deadly sins are a medieval list that cover personal sins These sins wreak havoc with society as well, which is why murder(wrath) is not even legal.
You have identified not recycling as sloth.
Would not putting your used pope can in the proper blue bin be classified as a venial sin, or a mortal sin?
R
Robyn_p
Guest
But the fact is, none of us know what the encyclical will actually focus on because it’s not out yet. Everybody is assuming the encyclical is focused entirely on climate change, but this seems like a rash assumption to me.
All we know for sure is that Francis thinks this is a serious enough issue to devote an entire encyclical to. A lot of work goes into an encyclical, it’s not something popes just write on a whim. To me that says he must have something important to say.
The smart thing to do is wait and see what the Pope actually has to say before telling him he’s wasting his time.
A
Abynissa
Guest
I wonder how many millions of dollars the Koch brothers are dumping into his campaign war chest?
J
JimG
Guest
Their preferred candidate is Scott Walker, but they also like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Both major political parties, of course, have big pocket contributors.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I have said before, that is not the only question on the table. There is a moral question too. Granted, the application of the moral issue is dependent on the outcome of a purely scientific debate. But once that debate is resolved, we could be facing that moral question head on. It would be good to know now what the considerations are for that question, and that is a good question for the pope to consider.
I
ishii
Guest
Probably a great deal less than the millions of dollars the Koch brothers have given to charities - particular to cancer research. The Republicans will need every cent to counter the hundreds of millions that Hillary has raised.
Ishii
C
captainrick
Guest
What? You mean poor Hillary, who was so “broke” awhile ago?
- Status