Thoughts on Kavanaugh?

[Ender]

Yep that is what I think as well. Lots of outlets trying to bill him as conservative, but I’m not sold. I am especially not crazy that he was the one who gave Roberts the idea that the ACA was a tax so they could rule it constitutional. That was about as big of a judicial side step as you can get. I see him as another Roberts or Kennedy, which is why you won’t see the Democrats really fight his nomination.

It is ironic that Kavanaugh is probably the best the Democrats could hope for, but they will in all likelihood oppose him as they did Bork because they perceive him to be a threat to Roe. I think the only nominee they would support is Merrick Garland, everyone else will get the scorched earth treatment.

 

[Ender]

That was already addressed in a previous post…

Just not very well… Freedom of the press as a concept is readily applicable to whatever particular form the “press” takes, which is why CNN is in fact covered by that particular right. The argument that rights only pertain to the specific entities enumerated in the Constitution if simply unreasonable, and is not an approach that either side of the political aisle would take seriously. The real argument is not that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be covered by that document but whether a concept can be rationally extended from what in fact does appear.

Arguing that corporations should not receive the rights of citizens because they were not specifically granted by the Constitution is a non starter. Any serious argument has to refute the reasoning behind the decision that identified the right in the first place.

 

[Luke6_37]

The real argument is not that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be covered by that document but whether a concept can be rationally extended from what in fact does appear.

Arguing that corporations should not receive the rights of citizens because they were not specifically granted by the Constitution is a non starter. Any serious argument has to refute the reasoning behind the decision that identified the right in the first place.

The thing about corporations is that they were a very well known entity back when the framers wrote the Constitution - the concept had long existed and everyone was aware that corporations were a form of colonial government that had certain legal powers and authority that were endowed upon them by the British monarch. Several of the thirteen original colonies were essentially business ventures by wealthy investors who formed the Virginia Company or Massachusetts Bay Company and their charters functioned as the governing constitution for the colony.

Given this, I would argue that the framers of the Constitution deliberately left corporations out of the Bill of Rights, because they did not want to recognize any entity, other than the states and individuals, as protected by the Constitution. They did not want corporations competing with the states in terms of political power. Corporations can be viewed as alternative governments that compete with state governments and today, they even compete with national governments. This reasoning stuck until 1886, when the first corporation was recognized as a “natural person” under the law in the United States in order to obtain 14th Amendment protections. The result was the growth of monopolies and cartels during the late 19th early 20th century that were really only reigned in by the labor movement, the depression and two world wars.

That is the era conservatives want this nation to return to on a global scale, but things were not so great for the working class during that time. Wages were low and work hours were long - kind of like they are now. Remember, Rerum Novarum was written in 1891.

A Short History Of Corporations | New Internationalist

 

[petra22]

I believe individuals have the right to associate for redress of grievances, hence the right to pool resources to support political candidates

But not forced to belong in order to work…?

 

[anon10271182]

Yes, the Bee got it right.

 

[anon10271182]

Firing squad or guillotine. No expiration dates.

 

[anon10271182]

Yes, and I think the distinction is crystal clear. When the unborn start raping and murdering people from the womb, then maybe abortion and capital punishment can be discussed together. Until then, equating the two is outrageous.

 

[anon10271182]

From The Marshall Project, in regard to one of the Arkansas executions:
“I watched the Twitter feeds of news outlets covering Lee’s execution with a racing heart and tears streaming down my face as they reported that he was taken to the chamber, strapped to a table and given a series of drugs to end his life. I ached knowing that he had been afraid of needles his entire life.”

Afraid of needles? Gee, I wonder if his neighbor was afraid of tire irons, like the one he used to beat her to death after raping her?

 

[Ender]

Given this, I would argue that the framers of the Constitution deliberately left corporations out of the Bill of Rights, because they did not want to recognize any entity, other than the states and individuals, as protected by the Constitution. They did not want corporations competing with the states in terms of political power. Corporations can be viewed as alternative governments that compete with state governments and today, they even compete with national governments. This reasoning stuck until 1886, when the first corporation was recognized as a “natural person” under the law in the United States in order to obtain 14th Amendment protections.

Yes, the question was about obtaining the protection of the law, which they addressed in 1891:

“A state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens.”

Are you arguing that a state does have to power to deny corporations equal protection of the law? Now this may be your interpretation, but the court seems to have been pretty consistent in these judgments. You appear to be discontented with about 130 years of rulings. How did this become a “conservative” thing?

That is the era conservatives want this nation to return to on a global scale

Finding a conservative who actually said something like this would make your assumption less unreasonable, but it seems no more based on reality than your perception of the validity of Supreme Court rulings regarding corporations.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I believe individuals have the right to associate for redress of grievances, hence the right to pool resources to support political candidates

But not forced to belong in order to work…?

Correct. I believe Janus was a good decision.
I’m also a teacher

 

[MonteRCMS]

When did Obama didn’t think he was a citizen?

When he was a citizen of Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship … and when he registered as a foreign student … and, by the way, he refuses to unblock his records.

 

[Luke6_37]

I don’t disagree. If I have to make a distinction, however, I see a distinction between the innocent soon to be born, and those convicted of crimes such as murder.

Yes, and I think the distinction is crystal clear. When the unborn start raping and murdering people from the womb, then maybe abortion and capital punishment can be discussed together. Until then, equating the two is outrageous.

Like I say to my LGBTQ friends, you can believe that if you want, but what you are saying goes against Catholic Doctrine.

In your case, killing a person for purely punitive reasons or as a deterrence is a grave evil. Theologically, the guilty are no less deserving of life than the innocent. Both are created in God’s image. That is why an assault on any person is an assault on God.

The only legitimate reason for the state to execute a person is if he poses a threat to society that the cannot be contained in any other way. Since that does not apply in the United States, Catholics must oppose the use of the death penalty here. I don’t know about Anglicans.

 

[JonNC]

Like I say to my LGBTQ friends, you can believe that if you want, but what you are saying goes against Catholic Doctrine.

You mean your interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Is it the responsibility of a soon-to-be-born human being to go to confession? Is it the responsibility of a criminal to go to confession?
Or are they different according to Catholic doctrine?

In your case, killing a person for purely punitive reasons or as a deterrence is a grave evil. Theologically, the guilty are no less deserving of life than the innocent. Both are created in God’s image. That is why an assault on any person is an assault on God.

The only legitimate reason for the state to execute a person is if he poses a threat to society that the cannot be contained in any other way. Since that does not apply in the United States, Catholics must oppose the use of the death penalty here. I don’t know about Anglicans.

Again, I will let others speak to your interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Otherwise, I generally agree regarding the use of capital punishment, but even in your post, you described a difference you say doesn’t exist. No soon-to-be-born human being “poses a threat to society that the cannot be contained in any other way.”
So, yes, there is a difference.

 

[Luke6_37]

Finding a conservative who actually said something like this would make your assumption less unreasonable, but it seems no more based on reality than your perception of the validity of Supreme Court rulings regarding corporations.

It’s not my assumption, it’s my analysis of what I witness happening today - based on an understanding of the past. It is fairly self-evident that the governing philosophy of conservatives when it comes to economics is to roll back 20th century reforms and return the nation to the way it was between 1891 and the start of the New Deal.

 

[Luke6_37]

You mean your interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Is it the responsibility of a soon-to-be-born human being to go to confession? Is it the responsibility of a criminal to go to confession?
Or are they different according to Catholic doctrine?

It is not my interpretation, it’s what the Popes & Bishops have consistently taught for nearly half a century. The sanctity of life has nothing to do with the merits of the person, so the distinction between a sinner and an innocent child is irrelevant in this context.

Catholic social teaching is based on and inseparable from our understanding of human life and human dignity. Every human being is created in the image of God and redeemed by Jesus Christ, and therefore is invaluable and worthy of respect as a member of the human family. Every person, from the moment of conception to natural death, has inherent dignity and a right to life consistent with that dignity. Human dignity comes from God, not from any human quality or accomplishment.
—from Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions

Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Again, I will let others speak to your interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Otherwise, I generally agree regarding the use of capital punishment, but even in your post, you described a difference you say doesn’t exist. No soon-to-be-born human being “poses a threat to society that the cannot be contained in any other way.”
So, yes, there is a difference.

I am glad you agree about the death penalty, but my point is that because Catholic Social Doctrine is based on the intrinsic and inalienable nature of a person, it doesn’t matter what the person has done or would do if given the opportunity. A serial killer in solitary confinement at a maximum security prison poses no more of a threat to society than an unborn child.

 

[Ender]

It’s not my assumption, it’s my analysis of what I witness happening today - based on an understanding of the past. It is fairly self-evident that the governing philosophy of conservatives when it comes to economics is to roll back 20th century reforms and return the nation to the way it was between 1891 and the start of the New Deal.

This is like a comment I’ve read about the church: “Very few people hate the Catholic church, but millions hate what they think it is.”

It is not my interpretation, it’s what the Popes & Bishops have consistently taught for nearly half a century. The sanctity of life has nothing to do with the merits of the person, so the distinction between a sinner and an innocent child is irrelevant in this context.

The “sanctity of life” is not absolute, and there is a rather significant difference between what may be justly done to the innocent versus what may be done to the guilty.

 

[dvdjs]

The “sanctity of life” is not absolute

Hospodi Pomiluj.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not my assumption, it’s my analysis of what I witness happening today - based on an understanding of the past. It is fairly self-evident that the governing philosophy of conservatives when it comes to economics is to roll back 20th century reforms and return the nation to the way it was between 1891 and the start of the New Deal.

There might be one or two writers for The American Spectator or something who think that, but I am surrounded by conservatives and I have never heard a single one ever say that or suggest it.

Besides, there were progressives between those dates, like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was “progressive” to the point of being an advocate of euthanasia of “inferior” people. He would be proud of the Democrats of today whose abortion policies kill more black babies than are born alive.

 

[Luke6_37]

This is like a comment I’ve read about the church: “Very few people hate the Catholic church, but millions hate what they think it is.”

I believe it was Fulton Sheen who said that.

You may have a different opinion, but I am pretty confident in my ability to drill down to the governing philosophy that is driving the current economic policies of the Republican Congress.

The “sanctity of life” is not absolute, and there is a rather significant difference between what may be justly done to the innocent versus what may be done to the guilty.

Sure, but if it’s possible to lock up the guilty so they are no longer a threat to society, you have no justifiable reason to kill them. To do so would be a grave evil.

A common error among right-wing Catholics, which is evident all over this forum, is the misunderstanding that the only evil that one must oppose is intrinsic evil. That is totally false. The truth is that a grave evil must be opposed more vehemently than an intrinsic evil that isn’t all that bad.

For example, Trump’s policy of treating all asylum seekers as criminals and using the practice of separating innocent children from their parents to deter people from crossing the border is a grave evil that must be opposed, even if it is not an intrinsic evil.

On the other hand, masturbation is an intrinsic evil, but isn’t a grave evil. To write laws making it illegal would be more detrimental to society than simply tolerating the fact that it happens all the time.

 

[Ender]

Hospodi Pomiluj.

God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7)… God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (JPII)