Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I can’t believe you guys think that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are some sort of subversive organization that wants to destroy the Catholic Church. They were created after being motivated by Pope Francis. They still exist out in the open; You can take a look to see what they are up to. I see them support Pope Francis more than the conservative groups/people I follow. Yes they are political but I believe their purpose is to bring Catholic teaching into American politics so it’s not a surprise.

This was a con, pure and simple.

ETA: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen them say anything that respected groups like Franciscan Action Network say. I really don’t understand the controversy.

Hopefully you are attempting humor.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The ability to freely exercise one’s conscience was and is the intent of the electoral college. I would prefer it be abolished or that state electors be apportioned rather than winner take all. For now we have a system that could deny Trump the WH. 37 non or switched votes and it goes to the house.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. Edmund Burke
Read more at: brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk166515.html

Not gonna happen.This narrssistic outrage thatvTrump could not have possibly legitimately won the election,is beyond pathetic.
Funny how that works,whenever a Republucan wins,somehow he doesn’t en legitimately does not have a mandate…please

 

[ProVobis]

It also sets a precedent for other people to break their pledges, “for a higher purpose”. Think about witnesses and jurors, and others. Once you get away from the concept of pledging you can rationalize almost anything.

Fair point but the Electoral College is composed of humans not robots. It’s about time we meet some of them.

 

[commenter]

example of fake Catholic organization, from Catholic Culture, a reputable Catholic org:

Website Review: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

A review based on: catholicsinalliance.org

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is self-described as “a non-partisan non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the fullness of the Catholic Social Tradition in the public square. Founded in 2004, our mission is to provide information to Catholics about Church social teaching as it relates to public participation in our society, and to advance the prophetic voice of the Catholic social tradition.” In reality this organization is more in line with Cardinal Bernardin’s Common Ground mishmash of leftist “social justice” issues.

Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics published by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good — which is led by former advisors to Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — is nothing other than a well-funded attempt to try to persuade Catholics that it is morally acceptable to continue to vote for the “personally opposed” pro-choice candidates who have swindled them in the past.

The guide notes that there can be “no litmus test” for Catholic voters and that there is “no Catholic voting formula.” It adds that “since we seldom, if ever, have the opportunity to vote for a candidate with the right positions on all the issues important to Catholics, we often must vote for candidates who may hold the ‘wrong’ Catholic positions on some issues in order to maximize the good our vote achieves in other areas.” Then it applies these half-truths to the question which is really at the foundation of the guide: “Is it okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate?”

We recommend you look elsewhere for guidance on political issues.

Please see Dr. Jeffrey Mirus’ excellent commentary on single-issue politics, and these articles from the Catholic Culture library:

Moral Principles for Catholic Voters
How Should Catholics Vote
Review Ratings what do these ratings mean?

First Evaluated: 09/11/2007; Last Updated: 09/15/2010

Fidelity: Danger!
Resources: Poor
Useability: Excellent
Strengths

None Reported.
Weaknesses

Fidelity: Questionable leadership Example(s)
Fidelity: Supported by dissident organizations Example(s)
Fidelity: Minimizes the issue of abortion Example(s)
Fidelity: Weekend with dissident Richard Rohr promoted Example(s)
Fidelity: Voter’s Guide which makes abortion one of many issues Example(s)
Categories

 

[commenter]

The ability to freely exercise one’s conscience was and is the intent of the electoral college.

Electors are not, in 2016, “representatives” of anyone. They have a right to vote, and they did that, on November 8. (Your representatives serve in Congress, not as electors). Your congress representatives pledge towards the best interests of the United States, and do that by exercising personal judgement.

A witness in a courtroom takes a pledge to carry out a certain function faithfully. So do electors. “Faithless” electors may lead to faithless courtroom witnesses, and faithless many other things, as people rationalize pledge-breaking, all the time appealing to their “conscience”, which really means the media.

 

[ProVobis]

Electors are not, in 2016, “representatives” of anyone. They have a right to vote, and they did that, on November 8. (Your representatives serve in Congress, not as electors). Your congress representatives pledge towards the best interests of the United States, and do that by exercising personal judgement.

A witness in a courtroom takes a pledge to carry out a certain function faithfully. So do electors. “Faithless” electors may lead to faithless courtroom witnesses, and faithless many other things, as people rationalize pledge-breaking, all the time appealing to their “conscience”, which really means the media.

Why not more like jurors?

 

[commenter]

Why not more like jurors?

Jurors, to some degree, are representatives of the community; you get a jury of your peers. They do in fact weigh the evidence, exercise personal judgement within very defined parameters. Jurors meet, and deliberate. They are not like electors.

A witness is someone brought in for a specific purpose. They don’t weigh the evidence for or against. They do not exercise **personal **judgement. They “follow their conscience” by carrying out their role in administration of justice, which is only seen as the process as a whole, not necessarily their tiny part. Witnesses are like electors.

It is tempting for witnesses to exercise personal judgement, for instance, by omitting adding certain details to what they witnessed, so as to “send a message”. A witness might, for instance, believe that “Men get away with rape too often” or “That race is too often falsely accused” or “just looking at her, I know she is innocent”. A witness can abandon the task she was pledged to do, and bend it a little, to “follow her conscience”.
Faithless witnesses are just as bad as faithless electors.

Some will argue that, 2 centuries ago, voters had different expectations for electors. Whatever was the pledge taken by electors 2 centuries ago, 2016 electors should follow the pledge of 2016.

 

[z_0101]

The population of the US was much smaller in Washington’s day. The law and the electoral college say Trump won. We have to go along with it. But we don’t have to pretend the victory was any more than it was - a technical squeaker.

That I will agree with!