Should pro-abortion Judges be excommunicated?

[Ender]

If the constitution were amended to ban abortion, it would go away as an issue and it could not be squeezed for votes.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride and amending the Constitution to ban abortion is about as likely as having idle wishes come true. Given that it requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to get an amendment considered by the states - and then three-quarters of the states to ratify it - the possibility of banning abortion via the amendment process is virtually nil. Inasmuch as politics is the art of the possible, I suspect that the ability to recognize the impossible is a good explanation of why Republicans never pushed for such an amendment.

Ender

 

[palmharbor]

Well, the Republicans who are all pro-life controlled the House and the Senate
and Bush never vetoed one bill in 8 years.Its easy to say it can’t be done but
if you never try then it is self-fulfilling . If the ProLife Republicans has at least
tried, they can say we tried but it didn’t work but they never even tried b/c they
don’t want to risk it actually happening. That would be bad for future voting,
as it would go away as an issue.

 

[jc-servant]

Orthodox1047, what you just saw was Palm Harbor violating Godwin’s Law. The discussion with him can now safely be declared “ended.”

Much as I hate to say it, I have to largely agree with Beau here. I radically disagree with the school of thought that has reigned since the New Deal (which basically says that rulings of the Supreme Court, not the Constitution as interpreted by each branch within its sphere, are the supreme law of the land), but, if we grant for a moment that judges do have the power to interpret a right to an abortion into the Constitution, then it seems to me that lower-court judges who honestly believe rulings of the SCOTUS to be the binding law of the land cannot be held morally culpable for upholding such rulings. However, such a judge should seriously consider the moral gravity of his or her position and prudentially decide whether to remain a judge in a climate where the civil law has so debased the natural law against murder, especially of one’s own offspring. Such law cannot be binding outside a courtroom to any Catholic.

That being said, I do not believe a SCOTUS ruling is the supreme law of the land, and those judges who act accordingly and uphold the Constitutional right to life (Amendments V, XIV) should be applauded. However, if a Constitutional amendment were passed making the civil right to abortion explicit, even these judges, stripped of alternatives, would have to consider resignation.

SCOTUS judges who merely interpret a right to an abortion into the Constitution, on the other hand, should censured most severely, as there is no legal theory this side of perdition in which that right could be considered remotely just or constitutional. Yes, Anthony Kennedy, I am looking at you. He, personally, probably should be excommunicated.

Great question, OP. Very stimulating to think about.

I don’t want to sound rude, but you are misinformed as to what the separation of powers among the 3 branches of our federal government are if you believe that “each branch” interprets the Constitution within it’s own sphere. This was settled in the early years of our nation and the judicial branch is where decisions about what is or is not Constitutional are made. The executive branch was not given those powers by the Constitution and neither was the legislative branch. The SCOTUS is at the top of the judicial branch, so they are the last word on what is or is not Constitutional whether or not we personally like it or choose not to believe it. This is the way it has been since the 1700s, not simply since the New Deal which had no effect on the area of Constitutional Law. If you were a lawyer you would remember learning about the case that settled the power struggle between the branches in your first week of Constitutional Law.

 

[palmharbor]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride and amending the Constitution to ban abortion is about as likely as having idle wishes come true. Given that it requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to get an amendment considered by the states - and then three-quarters of the states to ratify it - the possibility of banning abortion via the amendment process is virtually nil. Inasmuch as politics is the art of the possible, I suspect that the ability to recognize the impossible is a good explanation of why Republicans never pushed for such an amendment.

Ender

You say it would never pass 3/4 of the states then at the same time the leaders
of the P.L. movement say the majority of the US public is ProLife. So it follows
that if the majority of the US public is ProLife then it will pass.

 

[Ender]

You say it would never pass 3/4 of the states then at the same time the leaders of the P.L. movement say the majority of the US public is ProLife. So it follows that if the majority of the US public is ProLife then it will pass.

Not exactly. In order to get through the Senate any amendment would have to receive 67 votes and given that the Republicans never had more than 55 (and several of them are pro-abortion) there was never any possibility at all that such an amendment would pass the Senate and the numbers were at least as daunting in the House.

It never ceases to amaze me that people bash the Republicans for not attempting the impossible - a situation made impossible by the Democrats both in the US Congress and in the various state legislatures, and it really doesn’t matter if a majority of the public is pro-life (a label without any specific meaning) since great numbers of them don’t let their position on abortion determine their votes, as from your comments, I assume you didn’t either. I feel rather confident that if the people who consider themselves pro-life actually voted that way we would have significantly fewer pro-abortion congressmen as their instinct for self-preservation would quickly replace their support of abortion.

Ender

 

[miguel]

If it could be “easily” argued Why did not Reagan, Bush I or Bush II not make argument in the 20 years (240 months) that the nation had a Republican “pro-life” president? During Bush II, we also had a Republican congress as well. The answer is they NEVER want this issue to go away. The want to squeeze
Catholics et al for votes every two years.

Not sure how judges breaking their oaths to uphold the Constitution relates to pro-lifers being played by Republicans. But I share your concern. And the latest poll shows once again that the pro-life vote is split between the 2 parties…59% of Republicans oppose Roe along with 36% of Democrats. Disunity among folks of like mind has been a plague for the unborn.

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_08_11.pdf

Since the Constitution was amended to permit Women to vote (over the judgement of the fathers of the nation) its no longer an issue. Its done. If the constitution were amended to ban abortion, it would go away as an issue and it could not be squeezed for votes.

True. Although such an Amendment would be superflous had Roe not denied 14th Amendment equal protection to unborn persons. And we all know Amendments are difficult to achieve. Fortunately, there are other Constitutional checks, that could be used against judicial over-reaching: executive judicial nominations, senate confirmations, impeachments, congressional regulation of supreme court appellate jurisdiction (article III, section 2). That Republicans don’t use all these tools when they have the power shows they’re less than committed.

Doctors would set up clinics in Mexico, Canada, Bahamas, Virgin Islands, Caymen Islands where they would offer a package including air/hotel and the abortion for one all inclusive price. I guarantee it.

That some folks would inevitably skirt the law isn’t surprising. Are you going somewhere with this?

 

[RoncalliM]

When in doubt, I always refer to one of my favorite bible quotes:

“Just as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are exalted above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

God judges, not us.

 

[ahollars]

Well, the Republicans who are all pro-life controlled the House and the Senate
and Bush never vetoed one bill in 8 years.Its easy to say it can’t be done but
if you never try then it is self-fulfilling . If the ProLife Republicans has at least
tried, they can say we tried but it didn’t work but they never even tried b/c they
don’t want to risk it actually happening. That would be bad for future voting,
as it would go away as an issue.

This statement is proof that you don’t know what you are talking about and you are making it up as you go.

Do your homework before you say anything else factually incorrect, and then people will take you seriously.

 

[palmharbor]

You saying I don’t know what I am talking about without any facts different than
my own sounds like a Glenn Beck radio show.

 

[otjm]

You saying I don’t know what I am talking about without any facts different than
my own sounds like a Glenn Beck radio show.

Perhaps you should listen to Glenn more carefully!

 

[palmharbor]

I knew it! Glenn Beck has no background for what he says and a few weeks ago
a call got through in which the woman disagreed.(N*ormally those calls are
sucessfully screened out)…Well, he blew up and screamed at her get off my phone.
He reminds me of Friz Kuhn…he said the same of FDR as Beck is of Obama.
Kuhn was the leader of a conservative group called the German-American BUND.
He was popular like Beck and organized meetings in the north east…I suggest
you Google : German American Bund and learn some history.*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Becks,

You know, the last guy I read about who was purely interested in his view of a non-political goverment was Plato when he wrote the Republic. After him, it has been a steady march of people who believe that they need to push on the scale one-way while there are others who, just as passionately, believe they are to pull on it the other!

Several of the answers to this thread are confirming my suspicion that although “conservatives” (I hate that word) complain until they are blue in the face about activist judges, they don’t really want to see judges that are not activist, they really just want to see activist judges that agree with them.

Today, few are interested in a ‘philosopher-king’ actually ruling a country… even ancient Greece was not in favor of these ideas!

God bless