Stamped With the Divine Image

Sunday, January 22, AD 2017

These communities, by their representatives in old  Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We  hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are  created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with  certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic  interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their  lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of  the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to  all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their  enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and  likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded,  and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole  race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized  upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide  their children and their children’s children, and the countless  myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise  statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity  to breed tyrants, and so they established these great  self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man,  some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that  none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look  up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to  renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth,  and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues  might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would  hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles  on which the temple of liberty was being built.

Abraham Lincoln, August 17, 1858

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to Stamped With the Divine Image

  • I love president Lincoln. He was powerfully, deeply aware of those great thinkers and founders – and he was so capable of putting his knowledge and understanding into practice.
    I guess he was about forty years before it was started to become important to be “progressive” and to put down the old order of the past.

Leave a Reply

Roe V. Wade and the Right to Rule Ourselves

Sunday, January 22, AD 2017

 

On January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade and in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton made up a Constitutional right to abortion out of thin air.  There was nothing in the Constitution forbidding the states from regulating abortion, and the states had so regulated, and often criminalized, abortion since the inception of the Republic.  Roe and Doe were terrible crimes against the unborn, but they were also blows against the most precious civil liberty Americans possess:  the right to rule ourselves.

If Roe were overturned, the abortion regime of abortion on demand would be limited to a handful of states.  Some states would ban abortion outright in almost all cases.  Most would bring abortion under ever growing restrictions that would shrink the number of abortions performed.  One of the prime defenses of abortion currently, that is a Constitutional right, would be no more.  Pro-lifers would be free to focus on the ugly reality of abortion without fear that Federal courts by judicial fiat would upend hard won pro-life legislation at the state level.

How do we get there? Two main paths that I can see. 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

13 Responses to Roe V. Wade and the Right to Rule Ourselves

  • Agreed.

    The forces opposed to Life have made their presence known;https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/21/politics/madonna-speech-march/index.html

    This is invoking treason.
    A public figure talking like this is a threat and should be dealt with accordingly.

    Today all of my prayers are for the Right To Life March. God protect them from the Evil that has shown up. The Evil that is restless because they sense their demise.

    God help us in this battle for Life.

  • Remember what it took to end slavery and think not that sadly human error won’t require the same to end abortion today. I pray I am wrong. But I fear that the left will never surrender abortion till it is utterly defeated. The recent march by feminist lesbian and abortionist murderous perverts on DC prove that.

  • Court-stripping does not need to be tested. The authority to determine jurisdictions in right there. In truth, judicial misfeasance in this matter and in so many others that anything short of putting out contracts is legitimate means in a war on the courts.

  • The woman’s march was a celebration of Roe vs. Wade, the right of women to kill their own children.

    “Our Lady of Fatima, help us in the year 2017, intercede for us please. Our world has gone insane.

  • Keeping in mind that our Society is actually run by Lawyers ( no offense Don R. ) and Lawyers, ancient Greek Lawyers, invented Sophistry. That’s the Cop in me speaking. And yes, I have known some really great people that happened to be Lawyers. But the Sophism yet remains. Timothy Reed

  • In Fact ! Me own Niece, my very God Child, is one o’ THEM ! And I never let her forget it ! TR.

  • Could they be Leprechauns in disguise, all but the Niece ? TR.

  • When the Supreme Court violates our Founding Principles, the Court miscarries Justice. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” (not born equal).
    Roe v. Wade violated the principle that all men are created equal and never called for the burden of proof that the newly begotten sovereign person had no sovereign personhood. It was assumed and under pressure, the fix was in.
    The newly begotten human soul must actively will to survive. This act of the will is proof of sovereign personhood. The newly begotten sovereign person’s innate freedom to freely will to survive is his civil Right to Life. Any newly begotten sovereign person who cannot survive is a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.
    Roe v. Wade violates the newly begotten human being’s free will to survive.
    The Constitution for the United States provides “the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) Posterity…” all future generations.
    Roe v. Wade slaughters our constitutional Posterity and the mob marches on our Law of the Land.

  • Mary De Voe…do I have your permission to print up your comment and share with friends at our Church ?
    I find it brilliant and convincing. Timothy Reed

  • Timothy Reed.

    She’s just warming up.

    Mary De Voe is spot on.
    Truly.

  • I like her. TR.

  • Timothy Reed: Public domain is public, for the public and by the public. Public domain is held in joint and common tenancy by each and every sovereign person. Go for it or I have failed. Timothy means Honor of God. My maiden name translates from the Polish to Timothy. Rosaryvictory.blogspot.com. God bless us, one and all and The American Catholic forum.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

Leave a Reply

To All His Creatures

Friday, January 22, AD 2016

March for Life

 

 

These communities, by their representatives in old  Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We  hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are  created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with  certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic  interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their  lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of  the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to  all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their  enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and  likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded,  and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole  race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized  upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide  their children and their children’s children, and the countless  myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise  statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity  to breed tyrants, and so they established these great  self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man,  some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that  none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look  up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to  renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth,  and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues  might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would  hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles  on which the temple of liberty was being built.

Abraham Lincoln, August 17, 1858

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

7 Responses to To All His Creatures

  • “…nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

    To all Pro-Life people’s everywhere… God be with you. My humble prayers go to you and may Gods grace accompany you today and everyday.

  • I wonder where the ‘Black Lives Matter’ are on abortion since they are the main target of Planned Parenthood. We have a black holocaust going on and very few care to take notice.

  • Of course, the Dying Legacy Media ignores it all.

  • It always fascinates me that in spite of the mass “education” of today, we radically fail to reach the wisdom of our forefathers and great leaders. We are now reduced to arguing about the economics of things as if money alone envelopes our humanity. We are blind to the fact that it is the social issues that are the very weapon that our enemies within have taken us down with so well. Perhaps radical Islam will reawaken us in time to resurrect the great cultural yeast given us by the wisdom of our forefathers and the pure gift of our Creator?

  • @Don L.

    If not radical Islam, then possibly an act of nature. Of course no one would wish disaster upon themselves, but as you correctly mentioned, a reawakening on a massive volume of people, could reorient them to the last four things and the importance therein.
    Death Judgement Heaven Hell

  • “…so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land”
    I think Abe Lincoln would have liked Marco Rubio’s answer to an atheist

  • “…We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal….” Perhaps the most profound quote of our forefathers! I embrace the word “self-evident” because the fact also covers the logic of the very human existence of man, and with that follows the sacred character of the Commandments, all of them resting upon that very same being, viz., man, and his very nature.

Scalia on Roe

Friday, January 22, AD 2016

 

There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (conclusion)

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

3 Responses to Scalia on Roe

An Exercise in Raw Judicial Power

Thursday, January 22, AD 2015

As we observe the sad forty-second anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that overturned all state laws banning abortions and effectively served as a judicial death warrant for tens of millions of innocents, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to the two dissenting Justices, Byron White, a Democrat, and William Rehnquist, a Republican.  Here are the texts of their dissents:

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical adviser willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

15 Responses to An Exercise in Raw Judicial Power

  • “pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother”
    Any law that allows an abortion to be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother will prove unworkable. This was the position in Scotland before the Abortion Act 1967.
    In practice,
    (1) an unqualified abortionist was always prosecuted
    (2) the Crown Office would not challenge the clinical judgment of a salaried consultant or registrar, still less a professor, in a public hospital performing an abortion on an NHS patient; gratuity was seen as a sufficient guarantee of good faith.
    (3) an abortion performed by a doctor in private practice would be investigated by senior practitioners, nominated by the Crown Office, with indications of good faith including consultation with colleagues, such as a general practitioner, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist; admission to hospital or a recognised nursing home; observance of normal professional etiquette, such as a consultant being called in only by the patient’s general practitioner; reasonable fees being charged and the keeping of proper records.
    How doctors chose to interpret the law varied enormously. According to the Scotsman (23 December 1966), one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow. The difference resulted from the rival interpretations and clinical practice of the two Regius Professors of Midwifery, Dugald Baird at the University of Aberdeen and Ian Donald at the University of Glasgow, both of whom voiced their rival views in public. What was abundantly clear is that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office had no intention of testing the limits of the law in the courts.
    Many saw the 1967 act as clarifying, rather than changing, the law and introducing additional safeguards (two doctors, licensed facilities) rather than expanding it. Many Christians in both houses, voted for the bill, believing it provided the greatest measure of restriction and regulation that Parliament would approve.

  • This is appropriate here because the U. S. Catholic Conference needs to read it.
    .
    Jesus wept tears over Jerusalem. Jesus wept tears of Joy over the heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven. Jesus wept tears of Joy for His Father.
    .
    THE NEW AGE, THE NEW SECULAR ORDER emblazon on the U.S. dollar is the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from the sky. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Jesus wept tears of joy over the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven.
    .
    The righteous brother of the parable of the Prodigal Son refused to weep tears of joy at his father’s command to: ”Rejoice, your brother was dead but now he is alive.” Old righteous brother begrudged his father his tears of joy and his rejoicing and his father’s tears of joy and his father’s rejoicing. Righteous brother refused to bring gladness to his father’s heart. Even then, the father reminded the righteous son that “all that I have, is yours.”
    .
    Would it not have been great, if the righteous brother had brought his friends to the prodigal’s party to make merry with his father as is commanded in Deuteronomy 14: 22-29 about tithing: “and there before the Lord, your God, you shall partake of it and make merry with your family”? Instead he, (there is no other word, but the word I cannot write here) complained about not having enough, not enough heart to ask his father for his friends’ banquet, not enough heart to request to literally throw a party for his friends.
    .
    Deut.14: 28-29 continues, and this is particularly interesting because this passage impinges of the illegal alien. The words of God, Himself: “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all of the tithes of your produce for that year and deposit them in community store, that the Levite, who has no share in the heritage with you, and also the ALIEN, the orphan and the widow WHO BELONG to your community, may come and eat their fill; so that the Lord, your God may bless you in all you undertake.”
    .
    The individual conscience of the citizen CHOOSES to bring out his tithe, every third year, to donate to the community stores. Read food bank. It is not nice to fool Mother Nature, nor try to cheat God. The individual conscience of the man cannot cheat God without forfeiting his life and his immortal soul.
    Obama tries to square himself with God for abortion and legal sodomy by extorting tithe offerings from his fellow citizens without their valid consent or their willingness of conscience. He, then, donates his contraband to the poor, and blows his horn, adorns himself with crowns and gets the democratic party favors.
    .
    Getting back to the new Heavenly Jerusalem descending from God, (as Obama has tried to depict himself). cannot happen in the absence of Truth and Justice.
    .
    I was listening to Malachi Martin R.I.P. Malachi Martin was an exorcist for several decades. Martin said that coming into the presence of evil modifies the soul of even a good person. The soul of the evildoer is modified and the soul of the innocent person is modified. Martin called coming into the presence of an evildoer “dangerous”; an open door to Satan and Lucifer.
    .
    The government is demanding that the innocent proprietors of businesses suffer the entrance of evildoers into their midst as “the price of citizenship.” The state does not own the innocence, nor the soul, nor the sovereignty, nor the personhood, nor the informed consent, nor the CITIZENSHIP, nor the life of the citizen, any citizen.
    .
    For the state to impose regulations demanding that an innocent soul be “modified” by an evildoer is separation of church and state violated. The citizen constitutes and forms the government.
    .
    “Do not weep for me, but for your children”. If Jesus knew about the New World Order”, it was not new.
    .
    “A putative mother” is a very real mother, since the newly begotten child makes a mother of the woman. If the woman was not a mother, she would be a woman without a child. The woman hauled her child into court and demanded his extinction without “due process of law”, literally annihilating the Court.
    .
    The death of the mother is predicated on her imminent death, not a prognosis.
    .
    Snowflake babies, those frozen embryos adopted and gestated are citizens with sovereign personhood even as they are created and destroyed. Science, DNA, IVF and ABORTION, the destruction of humanity, have proven that a sovereign human being comes into existence at fertilization of the egg by human sperm. Enough with the ignorance, denial and tyranny.
    .
    I am sorry this is not better.

  • “I am sorry this is not better”.
    Your not in the position to apologize since your synopsis and arguments are clear and eloquent. You make sense Mary. Your pro-life efforts make a difference. Just consider the babies born that wouldn’t of had a chance if you and other lifers we’re not visible or present to these women who had a change of heart.

    One day in Gods glory, He might just open a book for you. Don’t be surprised if he shows these souls to you. Each and every one, given a chance for life.

  • MPS, your remarks are relevant exactly how?

  • Novus Ordo Seclorum= “A new order to/for the ages,” actually.

    It wouldn’t take much rewriting to apply White to the gay marriage case that will be before the court in a couple of months.

    I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

  • Ernst Schreiber: “Novus Ordo Seclorum= “A new order to/for the ages,” actually.”
    .and that would be to follow our conscience to vocation through freedom and the pursuit of Happiness.
    .
    I love Byron White. Byron White defended against Hugo Black the right to a relationship with almighty God in public square, prayer.
    .
    The one word I would change in his writing is the word: “constitutionally dissentitled.” to constitutionally disenfranchised. The word “disenfranchised” brings the weight of our civil rights to bear as “We, the people…” especially since the scientific proof of the newly begotten child as having constitutional civil rights to Life as our constitutional posterity from the very first moment of his existence.

  • The Supreme Court was as wrong in the Roe v Wade decision of the late 20th century as it was in the Dred Scott decision in the mid 19th century. When the issue is important, the Justices sitting on the bench render the most unjust decisions possible. They fail to realize in this life that the Supreme Justice is NOT a disinterested spectator in the events of human affairs, but they will find out in the next. Yesterday a black man was not a human being and today a baby is not a human being. God sees this. The first time He allowed a bloody civil war to punish us. What will He allow today?

  • Art Deco wrote, “your remarks are relevant exactly how?”
    As the dissenting justices both acknowledge abortion to be lawful in some circumstances, any attempt to restrict or regulate it wouldbe, in practice, have proved futile.
    Things would have been no different, if the majority had upheld the Texas statute, but subject to that limitation. The Scottish experience shows why.

  • Robert Bork wrote a devasting critique of the case in clear language,exposing it as a complete sham.His book should be required reading for anyone going to DC to march.

  • “Things would have been no different, if the majority had upheld the Texas statute,”

    Complete and total rubbish. The number of abortions exploded after Roe, the best estimates indicating a doubling in number.

    Additionally there is quite a difference between a country having a high murder rate and the same country legalizing murder.

  • The very nature of liberty requires a free people to allow and accept behavior from others that is both repugnant and benighted.

  • It does not require that people allow the destruction of innocent human life.

  • On the bright side, Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision. Most decisions upholding abortion since then have been by the thinnest of margins, many only 5-4.

  • Denver, you are describing license, not liberty.

  • Denver: “The very nature of liberty requires a free people to allow and accept behavior from others that is both repugnant and benighted.”
    .
    Snowflake babies, eggs fertilized, frozen and gestated have grown into “people”. (44,000 in U.K.) You say “a free people” must be given due process of law. “a free people” ought not be murdered.

Endless Debates

Tuesday, January 20, AD 2015

 

 

The New York Times hilariously believes that by agreeing to take up the question of gay marriage, the Court will resolve the issue, the Times assuming, as I do, that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.

Such judicial interventions in the governance of this country in regard to hotly contested questions tend to be the starting of debates and not the ending of them.  This week on January 22, we will be observing the 42 anniversary of the decision of Roe v. Wade which sought to resolved the abortion issue.  The fight about abortion continues unabated, the Court’s pro-abortion rulings notwithstanding.  In a democracy, attempts by nine unelected lawyers in black robes to resolve questions of great moment tend not to work in the absence of political power and consensus to support the decision.  Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reminds us that the Court has a long history of inflaming, rather than ending, debates in this nation:

In “Abuse of Discretion,” Clark Forsythe’s comprehensive look at how Roe v. Wade came to be, he notes that advocates of legalized abortion polled a very general question about whether abortion “should be between a woman and her physician.” Four months before the first arguments in Roe v. Wade were made, such a question got 64 percent affirming it in a Gallup poll, perhaps because the wording was so vague. (This is a bit of an aside, but Forsythe notes that abortion is almost never between a woman and her physician. Fewer than 5 percent of abortions are performed by a woman’s regular OB-GYN and almost all are performed by a stranger.)

You’d have to be living in a New York Times bubble to think that Roe v. Wade was either a limited decision or would end debate. In many ways, that decision is what led to many more people thinking deeply about abortion for the first time. And when they did begin thinking deeply about the topic, it frequently benefited the pro-life movement.

In another abortion decision years later, some justices signed onto some serious wishful thinking about court decisions settling the question of whether there is a right to kill an unborn child. Scalia’s dissent in Casey speaks to this and offers yet another example when the court thought it was settling another contentious issue (and that one’s a doozie):

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

I’ll give the New York Times this much: Whatever the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage, I bet it will end the debate at least as much as Dred Scott ended the debate about slavery, Roe ended the debate about abortion, and Casey ended the debate about abortion.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

25 Responses to Endless Debates

  • As they say; it was never supposed to be this way. The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do. The court has been built up by media and university to be something it is not; it is totally in the USG, which makes it worthless in confronting the USG.
    You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865. The States were the only real check on the USG, but AL changed all that. AL brought in the era of a super strong central government that interferes in our lives in almost every way.
    So stop looking at the SCOTUS for anything that resembles freedom. Not going to happen. Our new god is the USG, which is what communism is all about, replacing God. To Catholics that are faithful, it is not a new God, but a little Satan.

  • Terms limits and referendums.

  • Even if SCOTUS decides against a constitutional right to SSM, courts across the country will be faced with an intractable problem, similar to that raised by polygamous marriages in Europe.

    When citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in, say, France, where marriage is strictly monogamous, the courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the lady or ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife, as described in the Code Civil, to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

    The same question can arise in relation to succession to moveable and immoveable property, the owners of which are citizens of and domiciled in a foreign country where polygamy is legal.

    No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this and the politicians have avoided the issue like the plague..

    The analogy with same-sex marriages is obvious enough.

  • “You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.”

    What a bizarre statement. The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War. It was the slaveholding South and their Democrat allies in the North that championed an imperial Supreme Court based upon the Dred Scott decision. Their constant refrain was that the Supreme Court had spoken and that the question of whether slaveholders could take slaves into any territory had been resolved in the affirmative.

    Lincoln’s response to this in the First Inaugural was the correct one:

    I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War.”
    Only if one rather disingenuously separates the war itself from the war-aims of the victors and from its aftermath, in which those aims were implemented.
    Here was a war fought in defence of State Rights and opposing the right of the Federal government to interfere with a state’s domestic arrangements. Those that defended state rights were defeated and the victors placed them under military occupation, installed puppet governments of freedmen, scalawags and carpet-baggers and proceeded to ratify three constitutional amendments, all restricting the powers of the states.
    If sovereignty is “the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever” (Bodin), the states, for good or ill, were stripped of it as a result of the Civil War.

  • The Supreme Court has not been noticeable for its adherence to the doctrine of Stare Decisis.
    In Jones v Opelika [319 US 584 (1942)] one finds Roberts J complaining that, in some six years, the court had fourteen times reversed one or more of its earlier decisions, many of them recent. He observed that such decisions tended “to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that the opinion announced today may not shortly be repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject.”

    As one particularly egregious example, a case, Minersville School District v Gobitis [310 US 586 (1940)] that was decided by a majority of eight to one, was overruled three years later in West Virginia School Board of Education v Barnette [319 US 624 (1943)] by a majority of six to three. Of the six, three of the Justices (Black, Douglas & Murphy JJ) had changed their minds, two (Jackson & Ritledge JJ) were new appointments and one was the former lone dissident (Stone CJ, formerly Stone J)

    One might have thought that, the highest court having once decided what the law is, it should be for the legislator to say what it ought to be.

  • MPS I will assume that some neo-Confederate is holding you hostage and forcing you to speak such rubbish.

    The War was not fought in defense of States Rights but rather in defense of slavery. The founders of the Confederacy were quite forthright about that at the beginning of the War.

    As far as the Federal government interfering with “domestic arrangements”, what a coy way of speaking of human slavery, Lincoln was quite clear prior to the War that he had no power to interfere with slavery within a state.

    Those that defended slavery were defeated, not those that championed states’ rights.

    The post Civil War amendments would have been approved even if every former Confederate state had voted against them. The same group of people who led their states out of the Union quickly regained power as Reconstruction ended, largely due to the terrorism imposed against freed blacks by the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations that formed the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party in the South.

    The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.”
    I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

  • I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

    They issued such legislation around about 1832. Cannot recall if the customs inspectors in Charleston paid the South Carolina legislature any heed or not. IIRC, the legislature later retreated. The power of Congress delineated in Article I to levy “duties”, “imposts”, and “excises” could not be more explicit.

  • You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.

    As late as 1929, public expenditure amounted to 8% of gross domestic product; 65% of all public expenditure was executed by state and local governments, who received little in the way of subsidies from Washington. About 35% of federal expenditure was devoted to the military, not a task you can readily farm out to the periphery.

    Manipulation of the states through federal subventions started small with the financing of the U.S. Route system in 1916; it underwent rapid expansion during the Roosevelt Administration, but the real bender began in 1965 with various and sundry Great Society programs. Abuse of state and local government through federal court decisions was a problem of quite modest dimensions prior to 1954.

  • “The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do.”
    .
    The Supreme Court Justices are the personification of God’s perfect Justice. Justice cannot be bought and paid for. The Supreme Court Justices are given compensation. The compensation is derived from tax money and ought not be taxed as stipends and donations and free will offerings are not taxed. Justice Clarence Thomas was almost hauled before the IRS for some money his wife was given for a speaking engagement.
    .
    The Supreme Court stands as testimony against atheism. If anyone wants JUSTICE, “We, the people” need God, not the god of atheism nor the god of political correctness but the True God of Truth. Men are not wives, extortion is not contribution, and Truth, Justice and Innocence are born with every human being, from the very first moment of existence. God gives the newly begotten His Name: I AM…an adopted child of God, created and procreated.

  • Snowflake babies will end abortion.The existence of the human being, frozen and gestated into adult individual persons, can no longer be denied. Gracie Crane and 44,000 snowflake babies in U.K. alone. Test tube babies who survived every conceivable evil. Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned.
    .
    Roe v. Wade found that the unborn had no sovereign personhood, disenfranchising the unborn of their right to life. Gracie Crane says that she has sovereign personhood from the very first moment of her existence in the IVF, in the liquid nitrogen, in her adopted mother’s womb and in her adopted family. Gracie Crane has 44,000 witnesses to her testimony in the U.K. God endows sovereign personhood. The rights the state or the U.N. gives, the state and the U.N. can take away. T.J.
    .
    60,000,000 persons have been destroyed in the womb in America.

  • “I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?”

    No, although it threatened to do so. Jackson was at his finest during the Nullification Crisis, the first attempt by South Carolina to start a Civil War. Jackson made his policy clear on April 13, 1830 when he gave a toast at a Jefferson dinner of the Democrat party: “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved”. John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s Vice President and the very embodiment of South Carolina, responded: “The Union, next to our liberty most dear.”.

    The crisis came to a head in 1832 and it looked as if war was in the offing. On December 10, 1832 Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation which attacked both nullification and secession. Jackson threatened to hang every leader of the nullification forces if a drop of blood were shed in opposition to the laws of the United States. When Senator Hayne of South Carolina told Senator Benton of Missouri that he doubted if Jackson would really hang anyone, Benton, a good friend of Jackson and a man who had shot him in a brawl, one of many such affrays Jackson was involved in during his life, in 1813 before they became friends, told him that “When Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes”. South Carolina ultimately backed down, helped by Congress passing legislation lowering tariff rates along with a Force Bill authorizing Jackson to use force to collect the tariff, and our Civil War was reserved for a later generation.

  • Small but significant correction: that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.
    .
    Should be “that the Court is likely to strike down all laws upholding traditional marriage and impose its will by judicial fiat.” The vocabulary is important because it leads the conversation. Traditional marriage opponents want to frame traditionalists as “anti”. (“There they go again.”) In the modern public mind, being “anti” requires much higher justification.
    .
    Voters voted to define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. It is not a stand against a particular association. It is an affirmation of a definition of marriage. Anything else, be it heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, is incompatible.
    .
    In preparation for our new judicially formed society (Leave it to the robes to create a more perfect union.), I am reading Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. It’s a fascinating book so far. My Kindle highlighter is used on every page I think.

  • I too have read–and highly recommend– “Making Gay Okay.” Now I am able to understand the poisonous “Enlightenment” roots of the ideology that has brought us to where we are today regarding marriage. Unfortunately, this same time period produced the inspiration for many of the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

  • Don, I agree with your assessement of the Framers’ miscalculation of the Judicial Branch. I have long suspected that the Framers simply did not fully anticipate the scope of judicial review and its implications. Don’t get me wrong — anticipated or not, I do think Marbury v Madison was correctly decided. Judicial review necessarily follows from the architecture of our Constitution, and is conceptually desirable. But had its scope been properly anticipated, I believe the Framers would have supplied both the Executive and Legislative branches with superior checks against abuse. As it stands, the Court can exceed its Constitutional authority with impunity, and sometimes does. It did in Dred Scott, and it did in Roe and much of Roe’s progeny.

  • Agreed as to Marbury Mike. Some colonial courts had engaged in judicial review so it definitely was not a new concept. What would have stunned the Founding Fathers is a Congress so riven by partisan divisions as to tamely consent to judicial usurpations as a way to “win” on contentious issues by judicial fiat. The Founding Fathers always assumed that ultimate power resided in the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people, and to have that power blithely ceded to the Judiciary would have astounded them.

  • One aspect of this is, I suspect sociological or cultural, and that is that the interests and values of the legal profession prior to a certain date were never at such a variance with those of the general public that judicial review was a reliable instrument of political factions. I’d also wager that the closer one grows to our time, the more the legal profession and academe are populated with people quite willing to utter errant rubbish with the utmost superciliousness.

    It should trouble everyone that the disbarred Little Rock Lounge Lizard and his lovely wife Bruno are respected personages, nowhere more so than at the college campuses willing to pay them $189,000 for 50 minutes of boilerplate. It should trouble everyone that David Plouffe was able to merchandise someone as vapid and silly as BO, something never attempted before in the annals of presidential politics. Of course it does not, and the people least troubled are those putatively devoted to the life of the mind. Sorry age we live in.

  • “Sorry age we live in.”

    Amen Art.

  • Donald says; The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War. I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it. That fact alone shows were the power lies in our country. The USG serves at the pleasure of the states. That part of the constitution was written to ensure that if the USG became a tyrant, the states could control, replace, or do away with the constitution, as the states did in the first and second agreement with each other.

  • “I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it.”

    A power which has existed since the inception of the Constitution and which has never been exercised by the States. That of course has nothing to do with individual states seeking to ipse dixit nullify Federal laws.

  • There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison (6 Sept 1789)
    “On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form: The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”
    A salutary reminder that laws, including constitutions, are not judgments (which may be true or false) but commands, that is an act of the will.

  • “There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison”

    Interesting, and as usual, wrongheaded. Fortunately it was Madison who, along with his Federalist (not the political party) allies who had the final say. Here’s Madison himself, in print in Federalist 49.

    In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side. The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

  • PZ
    Jefferson had obviously read Turgot, for whom the maxim thatthe earth belonging to the living and not to the dead or to those on it not under it, is a constant theme.
    Now, as Lord Acton noted of Turgot, “he taught mankind to expect that the future would be unlike the past, that it would be better, and that the experience of ages may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control. He is eminently a benefactor to historical study; but he forged a weapon charged with power to abolish the product of history and the existing order. By the hypothesis of progress, the new is always gaining on the old; history is the e mbodiment of imperfection, and escape from history became the watchword of the coming day. Condorcet, the master’s pupil, thought that the world might be emancipated by burning its records.”
    Jefferson appears to have been of Turgot’s opinion; he was an extravagant hater of tailzies and perpetuities.

  • I’ve long maintained that Jefferson sounds much more like Rousseau in his language regarding constitutions, tradition, and democracy. Regardless of the influence, Jefferson’s philosophy is one that takes us down a rather dark path, in my opinion, but I’ve spilt so much digital ink on this topic that I’ll just leave it at that.

Defending the Indefensible

Wednesday, January 22, AD 2014

 

Harry Blackmun

 

 

My old legal ethics (Yeah, I know, attorneys are taught ethics?) professor, Ron Rotunda, has a fascinating opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune recalling a time in 1994 when he was in a small group that heard the late Justice Harry Blackmun defend his decision in Roe v. Wade:

 

 

Blackmun said Justice Byron White wrote a bitter dissent, referring to “raw judicial power.”  With a strong emphasis in his voice, Blackmun quipped: “I made Byron eat those words later in other cases.”  When White announced his dissent, “White was emotional.”  Blackmun asked rhetorically: “Why was White so strong against my view?  His upbringing in modest circumstances?  Or his wife’s influence?” 

It did not occur to Blackmun that White based his dissent on the court’s precedent.  Blackmun said, “We tried to decide the case on a constitutional basis, not a moral basis.”  Blackmun did not give that presumption to White.

Another Blackmun disclosure: “To date, I’ve gotten almost 70,000 letters on Roe. I have read almost all of them.” He said many letters are “abusive”  and he was amazed that many people objected to his decision. “Shortly after I spoke in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, I was picketed. I was surprised.”

He objected that “academic opinion was generally adverse” to Roe as not grounded in law and said that he thought it was unconstitutional for the government to fail to fund abortions for poor people.

The Constitution gives federal judges lifetime appointments, so that they don’t feel compelled to follow public opinion in deciding cases. Blackmun, however, apparently did follow it. He was pleased that a “New York Times editorial was in favor,” but noted that letters to the editor “were divided.”

Roe “protected the woman’s right, with the physician, to get an abortion.” Blackmun emphasized the italicized phrase with his voice.  He spoke of the case as a doctor’s rights case, not a woman’s right case.  In Roe, Blackmun said, for the first trimester, “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the state, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated.” Note that the right was the right of the physician, whom Blackmun assumed was male.

Blackmun explicitly rejected the argument that “one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases.”  Instead, in Roe, Blackmun cited, with approval, Buck v. Bell, a 1927 case that approved of compulsory sterilization.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

20 Responses to Defending the Indefensible

  • A shallow man or a fraud. Who can tell?

  • There in a woefully insufficient supply of ammunition.

  • “White was emotional.”

    The word chutzpah immediately springs to mind, especially considering Blackmun’s partial concurrence in Casey, an opinion completely devoid of any legal reasoning but filled with overwrought panic about the devastation and destruction that would occur were his Roe opinion overturned.

  • Instead of punishing the rapist, Oliver Wendell Homes, in Buck v. Bell had the victim sterilized. In punishing the victim for the criminal’s act, Roe v. Wade and Buck v. Bell are the same.

  • The innocent suffer when the guilty are not punished.

  • You don’t get it Paul. When the Anointed want something it is ‘a matter of principle’. When the rest of us want something, it’s an ’emotional issue’. (h/t Thomas Sowell, of course).

  • Blackmun said, “We tried to decide the case on a constitutional basis, not a moral basis.” Pretty cute.

  • Pingback: March for Life Evening Edition - BigPulpit.com
  • With a strong emphasis in his voice, Blackmun quipped: “I made Byron eat those words later in other cases.”

    Yeah, whatever. A legend in his own mind. He’s lucky Whizzer didn’t dropkick his @$$.

  • Blackmun probably went over to the liberal side of the Court largely over vanity. The newspapers loved calling him and Burger the Minnesota Twins and assumed that he would be a puppet for Burger. A small, petty man’s wounded pride helped bring about the monstrosity of Roe.

  • “Or his wife’s influence?” I don’t know for sure what he meant by that. But I sure hate hearing some one slam an opponent by suggesting that he is controlled by his wife…really I guess impugning the guys manhood, ridiculing him and all women at the same time.

  • “Roe “protected the woman’s right, with the physician, to get an abortion.” Blackmun emphasized the italicized phrase with his voice. He spoke of the case as a doctor’s rights case, not a woman’s right case. In Roe, Blackmun said, for the first trimester, “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the state, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated.”….”
    .
    One wonders the outcome if medical doctors recognized that their duty of care was to mother and child and that the injunction “Primum non nocere”…First, Do No Harm…applied to both.
    .
    Perhaps 58 million + aborted babies would be alive today.

  • I was at a American Public Health Association meeting where Blackmun was the guest of honor. He was fawned over and got a standing ovation from most attendees. He spoke of how he had spent hours in the Mayo Clinic library researching the issue of when life begins. Had fetal ultasound been available, all his sophistry would have crumbled.

  • Blackmun didn’t even understand the law, let alone fetal development. A good demonstration of just how bad Roe is as a judicial opinion purporting to construe the constitution is the late John Hart Ely’s The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade. Professor Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, is absolutely devastating in his analysis of the decision. The article is available online as a PDF. Ely summed it all up in one sentence: “Roe lacks even colorable support in the constitutional text, history, or any other appropriate source of constitutional doctrine.”

  • Blackmun didn’t even understand the law, let alone fetal development.

    Richard Nixon delegated the vetting of judicial appointments to John Mitchell, a municipal bond lawyer. Mitchell’s pratfalls in this function with regard to Supreme Court appointments were severe enough that the task was reassigned….to John Dean, erstwhile congressional committee counsel, protege of Richard Kleindienst, and the least distinguished person to occupy the position of ‘counsel to the president’ in the last four decades (Dean’s career in private practice had consisted of less then two years as an associate at a communications law firm, a post from which he was dismissed for misconduct). Between the two of them, Mitchell and Dean coughed up two candidates vulnerable on the question of race relations, one Florida judge whose mediocrity was well-known, two provincial trial lawyers with no experience on the bench, and an assistant attorney-general with no experience on the bench. They allowed a committee of the American Bar Association to veto one of their other candidates for ‘inexperience’; that particular candidate was a sitting federal judge in late middle age.

  • Roe disenfranchised every American male of his seed, a body part, that no Court or another person can claim to own, absolute tyranny over the human body.

  • And they brought the fight to us! We didn’t want to have to set aside our entire lives fighting to overturn this decision. It is the stupidest, most vile waste of time and the lives of 56 million babies and all of their generations to follow. There is no excuse for any of this. It was pre planned. PERIOD! I have spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars over the last 40+ years. Every thing we have done in our lives since January 22, 1973 has been focused around meetings, rallies, conventions. I still to this day feel like this is a bad dream I can’t wake up from. Nothing makes sense to me. There was nary a word at our Masses concerning the Right To Life! Britt Hume did an excellent job with his commentary the other night, but the fact remains we have this scourge and we are sorely lacking the kind of leadership we needed not only to lead but to encourage. Who was it that felt that a court of people should rule when life begins? I feel like Charlie Brown, “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

  • “He was pleased that a “New York Times editorial was in favor,” …”

    Paging John Roberts.

  • “Who was it that felt that a court of people should rule when life begins?” If the baby were not alive, the baby would not grow and abortion would not be necessary if the child were not alive.

  • “Who was it that felt that a court of people should rule when life begins?”
    The one who claims he was not alive when his life began.

Generations

Wednesday, January 22, AD 2014

For the Lord is sweet, his mercy endureth for ever, and his truth to generation and generation.

Psalm 99:  5

 

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

Justice Byron White, from his dissent in Roe v. Wade

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to Generations

  • The sovereign person who is conceived endows motherhood to a woman and fatherhood to a man. The newly begotten child creates the mother of a woman and a father of a man. Yet, the Court insisted on conserving the life of the mother over and above the life of the person who delivered motherhood. The mother’s whim or lack thereof ignores the innocent human soul of our constitutional posterity, all future generations, each and every sovereign person brought forth in human nature and protected by our Constitution as the purpose of the Preamble states: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity.” To deny the newly brought forth human being, a sovereign person, endowed with all unalienable right to Life by our Creator, the freedom to grow in freedom of religion, speech, press and peaceable assembly violates the First Amendment. The child’s will to live is the state’s right to life, our Constitution’s right to life, the protection of the sovereign person.
    The state does not create the sovereign person, God does. The sovereign person creates the state. Therefore, Roe v. Wade is a lie, perjury in a court of law.

  • The innocent, morally and legally innocent, human person conceived, is the standard of Justice for the state; the compelling interest of the state in protecting the sovereign person, newly begotten, our constitutional posterity. Justice, without innocence, is miscarriage. It is the duty of the state to protect the innocence and the virginity of our most innocent and virgin to deliver Justice. It is the duty of the state to deliver Justice. Without Justice we are no longer a civilization.

  • The state does not own the human being. The human being owns the state. Parental notification is an obligation in Justice of the state to acknowledge the freedom of the sovereign personhood of parents. Abortion advocates may not impose their denial of the civil rights of human beings who are parents because abortion advocates have not created the sovereign person nor do they own the sovereign person. To trespass against a minor child’s civil rights, deny informed consent of the parents, is the height of tyranny, and violation of the sovereign state, a sovereignty endowed by the minor child.

  • The injustice of only allowing parents of a minor daughter to be notified that their underage daughter will be having an abortion–is down right mind numbing. You have to be 18 years old to get your ears pierced without your parents’ permission–and yet the SCOTUS has said that parents only have a right to notification of a medical procedure that can kill their daughter–and will kill their grandchild. This is pure, unadulterated legal, moral, & ethical insanity!!!

  • I forgot how powerful and direct the dissent was. Thanks for the reminder.

  • Question:
    “This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs ”

    What does this mean? Do we still have all those processes he referred to with the way the executive branch currently seems to assume power, justice department seems rogue. Census bureau can make old fashioned efforts to gerrymander and otherwise control elections seem like pat-a-cake. IRS frightens donors and people trying to protect or promote a viewpoint by participating in the process, etc. The idea of fair elections as a process available to the people to express their will seems more like a dream

  • Pingback: March for Life Evening Edition - BigPulpit.com
  • “This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”
    It means Anzlyne, that the people must vote on the death penalty for the newly conceived according to his innocence, moral and legal innocence, and his guilt for a capital crime to justify taking his life. Threatening the life of his mother would make abortion a case of self-defense, a just war theory from Aquinas. The child’s guilt must be taken into account and judged. This judgement can only be made on a case by case assessment by several doctors, for a prognosis is a definite maybe. Roe v. Wade is across the board discrimination because of existence, species, race, sex, and ultimately power.
    Abortion to save the life of the mother has a grave precedent in every hospital across the nation and world, long before Roe came to force every taxpayer to fund Planned Parenthood and reduce the population. The boot on the neck, the coercion to force people into Pro-life, pro-death camps came about by people not associated with Justice but those indulging in hatred of man, the lust for power and the usurpation of other people’s money.

Roe and Back Alley Abortions

Friday, April 19, AD 2013

19 Responses to Roe and Back Alley Abortions

  • I still fear that the left sees this as nothing more than added reason to expand abortion rights: “See what happens when you stigmatize late term abortions?”

  • I wish I could fight as you do, Donald. I am simply appalled and revolted. I get too angry to stand outside abortion clinics. I have to go to Adoration and pray. That’s all I can do. For crimes like this, God allowed the Assyrians and Bablyonians to plunder and burn Israel and Judea. What will He allow to happen to us? 🙁

  • I had an abortion years ago. I was afraid. I didn’t know then that I would be haunted forever?

    If I met my baby in the afterworld, what should I say? “I could have been your mom but I was afraid? You could have lived and had A LIFE but I was afraid?”

    What a worthless coward I am, contributing to the moral decay of this country. I wish i was dead.

  • I murdered my baby. Christ should not love me. Nobody should love me.

  • There is forgiveness for us all thanks to the love of God, Exiled. Remember the ringing words of Isaiah: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

    Some of the most fervent pro-lifers I have met are women who have had abortions. Put the anguish that you feel into helping other women cherish the gift of life that they have been given. The peace of Christ be upon you.

  • Christ did not die upon the Cross Paul to see evil triumph. In the love and grace of God we are more than conquerors and we shall prevail.

  • Lies piled upon lies J. Christian can have their brief moment, but truth will ever ultimately prevail.

  • Do you know what I recall about my abortion? Not the abortion itself I was put under. It was after it was over. One of the PP nurses, or whatever they are, came around, made us stand up, and pulled our underwear and looked down to see if we were bleeding. ‘Oh, you look fine.”

    Having some stranger look down my underwear was the most dehumaning moment…nothing, though, compared to what my poor baby went through.

    Please, please, Jesus, please, have mercy on my soul.

  • ExiledonMainStreet,

    I was involved in an abortion long ago when I was in my apostasy and rebellion. I know what I deserve, especially since I had been taught the sanctity of life from the age of a child. But God in His mercy did not give me what I deserve – death. You see, that’s the reason for the Cross. He took that punishment on Himself, a punishment I deserve. I am still ashamed of what I did. I still cannot get rid of the feelings of guilt. And I still cannot stand outside of abortion clinics. Indeed, this is one reason why I get so mad at Obama and the abortionists – because I am angry at myself for my own failure. Yes, God will forgive you, but you have to forgive yourself. For me, Confession and Penance are gifts.

  • Donald, I want to tell women all day long that that baby is worth it! I would do anything to tell women to keep the babies (or give them up for adoption) and not abort. Do you know where Ican do this?

  • What a terrible person Tom Ridge was for allowing this. Ridge was brought up Catholic. It is disgusting to see how many Catholic politicians in this nation have supported abortion.

    The disgusting media, who I now ignore almost completely, has done its worst in ignoring this trial. God will have more mercy upon all involved who perpetuate this than I would.

    Exiled, God’s forgiveness is not denied to you, but you must seek it and ask for it. Obviously you are a penitent person. Go to a priest.

  • Go to Birthright and give their 800 number a call: 800-450-4900. I am sure they will be able to put you to work as a volunteer giving help to women in troubled pregnancies. I was doing this while I was in college. Here is a link to their site:

    http://www.birthright.org/

    If that doesn’t work out, there are a ton of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers around the nation. I have been Chairman of the Board of the one in my county, and I can’t speak highly enough of the volunteers, and among them there are women who have had abortions.

  • I never had an abortion in a clinic, but I did have an IUD. I am guilty as others. Project Rachel has helped me. I know Jesus and the Father loves me, and I am forgiven, thank God.

  • The Apostles’ Creed finishes with, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. Amen.”

    We are all sinners. I am worse than most.

    No one is good except God.

    I must, each day, prayerfully resolve to repent of my sins; to confess my sins, to do penance; to amend my life; and to do good works to glorify Almighty God through our God and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

    One step is to embrace humility and to recognize that I cannot do it without the grace of God.

  • Dear ExiledonMainStreet,
    You are the beloved daughter of a Father who has loved you for all eternity and still loves you. No He cannot undo what has been done–He respects our decisions. However, He can repair the damage we have done and He can heal. The evidence is in your regret, sorrow and determination. Sylvia mentioned Project Rachel and I know you will receive help there and strength for the journey ahead: http://hopeafterabortion.com/ or call 1-888-456-HOPE (4673). You, dear child, are in my prayers. I hope to meet you in heaven.

  • ExiledonMainStreet-
    even with massive amounts of support, and our kids being dearly wanted, each pregnancy has been terrifying; I have trouble imagining what it must be like without the kind of help I have.
    There’s a reason most pro-lifers are less hard on the mother.

    Please, talk to the various post-abortion support groups folks here have suggested. If you can, volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers. Speak up about the regret, if you can. If you’re in the New York area, I’ve heard a lot of good about the Sisters of Life. It looks like they’re connected to a network around the US and Canada.

    God forgives. And a great thing about heaven, as I understand it, is that your child will understand.

  • Pingback: The Flowering of Evangelization - BIG PULPIT
  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul
  • @ExiledonMainStreet — there is forgiveness through Christ. You are a valued person and Christ loves you and wants to help you. I’d suggest investigating Rachel’s Vineyard (http://rachelsvineyard.org/) in your area. There is real forgiveness and healing and they can help. Please consider reaching out to them. God bless you. We’ll keep you and your baby in our prayers.

Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013

 

 

Forty years ago today the Supreme Court rendered its Roe v. Wade decision. Those who believe in the sanctity of human life and long to see America embrace a culture in which innocent life is honored and protected continue to look for a day when humanity is again deemed valuable, where we cherish even those who would be born in “less than ideal circumstances.” Children are our most precious resource and remain the greatest symbol of hope God has given us. This is just one reason why the annual March for Life has been such a powerful aspect of the pro-life movement. This year’s event is Friday, January 25th, and once again a multitude of Americans will gather in Washington, D.C. to show their support for precious little ones.

Our Founding Fathers declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, since 1973, millions of children have been denied the basic right upon which all the others hinge: the right to life.

Lately, President Obama has taken to boldly highlighting children in his speeches. Using kids as the backdrop for his gun control speech, the President claimed his commitment to young ones. “If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,” he said. He then outlined why gutting our Second Amendment is the means by which he believes we accomplish this. Every law-abiding citizen’s heart is broken when children are the target of men hell-bent on committing acts of evil, and we agree that the safety and protection of innocent life is paramount.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

18 Responses to Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

  • Thank you for this. Very well articulated. I have been saying this myself for a long time now. Obama would be willing to abort and kill his own grandchild if his daughter had an unintended pregnancy. It is a vicious point of view on the value of human life. An unborn child is every bit as fully human as any child killed in the school massacre. Think of what our society would be like if we welcomed all human life with joy, rallied around to support the mothers of all children, and put down our selfish inclinations to do just what is convenient for our own purposes. There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • Well said, Sarah Palin! For individuals with Down syndrome, their families, and friends, who are going to be at the March for Life in DC on Friday, please join us for our KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) gathering prior to the march, and walk with us in the March for Life, in solidarity with the individuals with Down syndrome, born and unborn. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, herself also a mother of a child with Down syndrome, will speak to our group at 11:00.
    http://keepinfantswithdownsyndrome.blogspot.com/2013/01/kids-gathering-at-2013-march-for-life.html
    (if you decide to join us, my contact information is on the KIDS blog)

  • Good posting. My one nitpick – and it’s a nitpick – is that we shouldn’t refer to the pro-abortion agenda as “liberal”. We should allow the self-identified liberal to reclaim his rightful role in the pro-life movement. It’s kind of the point of the whole posting.

  • I sincerely hope Sarah Palin’s career in politics is not over. She needs to stay in the political arena and keep being a voice for life.

  • Sarah has not made a “career” in politics, she has stepped forward as a freedom loving American citizen to make things better for our country when corrupt politicians were only making things better for themselves. She was so effective at righting wrong in government, even taking on high level people in her own party, that she became a threat to the opposing party and to some within her party. Those politicos turned the elite media on her to destroy her and have succeeded to this point. Not even a single Catholic clergyman ever spoke up in her defense, not even when it was announced she was carrying a Downs syndrome child. Until the good people in this country rise up and demand from the First Amendment Rights protected media, the truth and honest objectivity, we will continue to be deceived by what has become Pravda in the U.S. If we will do that, good people like Sarah Palin will have a real chance to be elected to high office. I, for one, don’t trust or believe the liberal, now leftest media. But I do trust and believe Sarah Palin.

  • when I see a post with Sarah Palin in the headline I read it right away. To me she stands for hope. She is a sign of contradiction to the sick and sad culture around us.
    This quote from our first commenter says it well : There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • The current administration has no moral compass. Anarchy and chaos will surely plague us for the next four years.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

  • I love this woman! What she’s been subjected to by mental midgets has been horrendous, yet she still remains so strong and a thorn in Obama’s side. May God bless and protect her and her family.

  • “I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter.”

    What a substanceless comment! A glittering jewel of an example of a troll grunt that manages only to convey a dislike of Sarah Palin and spares not a second to address the substance of her post which is that Obama’s pro-abortion advocacy makes all of his protestations of concern for children ring as hollow as his promise in 2008 to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Obama uses kids as political weapons. In the womb they are useful to stir up his followers who view the right to slay their offspring as a precious right or rite. Outside the womb they are useful as political props. Palin was completely on target in her critique.

  • Blee – are you a Mass attending Catholic?

  • Perhaps Blee can enlighten us on what extreme opinions Governor Palin has or when she has strayed from the truth. We’ll be awaiting your response.

  • Blee, Palin refers to President Obama as “President Obama” once in the piece, and 8 times as “the President”. She doesn’t refer to him as “Obama” once.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

    Your literate self might learn to spell common-and-garden words like ‘extreme’ and ‘vitriol’.

  • I so miss getting that sharp Palin point of view on Fox. Who knows where we would be if the puppet media hadn’t tore her down so quickly. Sometimes I get so disheartened by the way Satin so easily steals the show. But I remind myself that it is like we are seeing the gnarly, raveled and torn backside of a beautiful tapestry that won’t be completed until the end of time. We already know that Our Lady’s immaculate (yet sorrowful) heart will triumph! Sigh.

  • Sarah Palin: “There is destiny for every child in the world and it is good…” the unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness. The pursuit of Happiness for our- selves and our constitutional posterity is the pursuit of our destiny. God, the Father, alone, knows where our pursuit of our destiny will bring us, therefore, let us not hesitate or delay to do the will of God.
    Sarah Palin has my vote. I was, indeed, very disappointed in that I could not vote for Palin.

Nothing Says Romance Like Genocide!

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013

14 Responses to Nothing Says Romance Like Genocide!

  • The man in the commercial is completely demonic and satanic. This is clear to anyone who has the barest thread of conscience.

  • It’s like a screwtape commercial.

  • His laugh is Satanic, the concept and its just plain sickening. Gross. The sleazy music and what is sipping…reminds me of a SNL skit.
    To Hell they will gladly run. Heaven will be to foreign. They will choose Hell.

  • are they continuing to run this ad or are they withdrawing it after hearing how so many people react ?

  • My wife showed me this yesterday, and it is really creepy. What is sad is that the marketing people at Planned Parenthood have been so corrupted by what they do that they can’t recognize how creepy it is. They think it would be effective marketing. Quite frankly, I hope they don’t pull it. They should show it as widely and as often as they can! It’s effective for the pro-life movement!

  • How disgusting!
    Who is that idiot, anyway? Is he an actor?
    Stomach churning!

  • Does anyone else find it sickening that he keeps calling the anniversary of legalized abortion “baby”?

    It’s almost like he’s saying “you look great for being a dismembered corpse for 40 years”… “creepy” and “sickening” really don’t give justice to how disgusting this commercial really is.

  • Here, before you, we see a man devoid of conscience. It is pretty ugly. WHO gave that individual the right to call me “BABE”? He looks and acts like Beelzebub. “Hey dude” get your courtesy in order, even the devil would not allow you to call him “Babe”, much less “HEY”.
    Jesus Christ treated the sovereign personhood of the devil, evil personified, with respect. Besides, BABE was a pig. Even the swine wanted no part of the devil and exorcized themselves by running off the cliff into the sea and drowning. Smart pigs. I will be having pig’s feet for supper tonight, “Hee, Hee, Hee, hum, Hee”. God willing. And, “Buster”, get your hands off my tax dollars.

  • Ok, Did he seriously just say that?

    Things aren’t that bad, Maxwell the pig would rather play fruit ninja than ——–
    Some people hate Maxwell, others love him. But, the trick of the commercial is to attract customers who have perspercacious values which leads to less claims.

    The commercial shown here is a rip off of the Most Interesting Man In The World.
    Let your imagination roam.
    I don’t use women often, but when I do, I have her pay Planned Parenthood.

  • @Anon: Sorry, Anon, I had Maxwell the pig for supper last night.

    “The commercial shown here is a rip off of the Most Interesting Man In The World.”

    The devil is the most cunning of creatures. However, the devil has no soul, and spends eternity in hell.

  • Do you have a transcript for the ad? It’s been taken down.

2 Responses to Abortion Q & A

Trembling for my Country

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

Abortions since Roe

Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Thomas Jefferson, 1785

I have always agreed with this sentiment of President Abraham Lincoln:

“Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

If the Civil War was the punishment visited upon the nation for slavery, what plague will visit us for celebrating the “right” to abortion?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to Trembling for my Country

  • In 1974, the legendary folk/pop duo Seals and Crofts released this song, probably the first pro-life song ever recorded. It was a gutsy move given they were at the zenith of their career at teh time and were hit with calls for boycotts of their concerts and by pro-abort groups as well as pressuring radio stations not to play the song.

  • THE INTENDED MEANING OF LIFE

    Humanity has forgotten the real meaning of life.
    They are the victims of their invention of endless strife.
    Created in God’s image, Adam lived in paradise.
    Creating Eve, his wife, soon precipitated demise.

    They failed God’s only test and introduced the world to sin.
    Driven out in shame – would heaven ever open again?
    God knew man would sin, and the Son would reopen heaven.
    The Son would become man through the Holy Spirit leaven.

    The only meaning in life is to save your immortal soul.
    Your guardian angel will help you live a soul-saving role.
    Life in this world where both good and evil abound is a test.
    Reward for a life obedient to God’s will is best.

    The Declaration of Independence has lost its soul.
    It was overruled by the Supreme Court child-killing role.
    Marriage between a man and woman is God’s moral law.
    The Supreme Court is now being asked to call that a flaw.

    The God our Founding Fathers trusted is not now in vogue.
    He is being superseded by a socialist rogue.
    If our nation can’t regain the moral meaning of life,
    I can assure that it will bring us never ending strife.

    Bob Rowland
    I/XIX/MMXIII

  • Amen, Donald! Hosea chapter 8:

    1 Set the trumpet to your lips, for * a vulture is over the house of the LORD, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2 To me they cry, My God, we Israel know thee. 3 Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4 They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5 I have * spurned your calf, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will it be till they are pure 6 in Israel? * A workman made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. * 7 For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. 8 Israel is swallowed up; already they are among the nations as a useless vessel. 9 For they have gone up to Assyria, a wild ass wandering alone; Ephraim has hired lovers. 10 Though they hire allies among the nations, I will soon gather them up. And they shall cease * for a little while from anointing * king and princes. 11 Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they have become to him altars for sinning. 12 Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing. 13 They love sacrifice; * they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the LORD has no delight in them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt. 14* For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces; and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour his strongholds.

  • The Civil War for slavery. Atheism for abortion.

  • Chastisement is underway.
    Religious Freedoms mocked.
    National security breached. ( members of Islamic brotherhood entrenched in administration. )
    2nd. Amendment threatened.
    The days when men of good character are told to stop reciting Scripture publicly or face the punishment of violating “hate crimes” is already upon us.
    We are there.
    Our silence has been deafening.
    Our apathy has been deadly.
    Our walk to the woodshed has begun.

  • The present is the full flowering of the Great Apostacy which started with the Reformation (De-formation) and has grown apace over the past centuries. Many of the “protesters” have lost the plot, supporting the various abominations in our western society.
    End times are on us – but how long they will last, “Only the Father knows”.
    Buckle up for the momentum gathering of the Persecution.

The Worst Supreme Court Decision of All-Time

Friday, June 29, AD 2012

As bad as yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was, it doesn’t hold a candle to one handed down twenty years ago today. On this date in 1992, the Court decided the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. People might be disappointed with John Roberts right now, but the fury at Justices O’Connor and Kennedy, and to a lesser extent Souter, after they voted to uphold Roe v. Wade dwarfs that.

Ed Whelan links to post by Michael Stokes Paulsen in which he calls Casey the worst Supreme Court decision of all-time. Part one is here, and part two is here. I wholeheartedly agree. I also ranked Casey as the worst when compiling my list of the worst decisions of all-time. Sure, there have been several atrocious decisions handed down by the Court, and Paulsen highlights some of the worst defenders in part one. But what makes Casey so egregious is the combination of the sheer awfulness of the decision from a constitutional perspective, as well as the devastating real world impacts it had.

Paulsen details all that is wrong with the decision. The plurality opinion relied on stare decisis to reach its conclusion, treating the doctrine as though it were sacrosanct. If you listened to the plurality you would come to the conclusion that Court had never struck down a decision it considered to be wrongly decided. What’s more, the plurality opinion is simply a mess of contorted logic, rightfully mocked by Scalia in his brilliant dissent. Most damning, it ensured the continued legal protection of abortion, dooming millions more unborn children to their premature death.

I’ll leave you to read both articles in their entirety.

Roe v. Wade may have made abortion legal in all 50 states, but Casey entrenched that decision. Worse still, it did so in a way that made the Roe majority opinion seem like a masterwork of originalist logic by comparison.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Worst Supreme Court Decision of All-Time

  • Paul:

    Funny you should mention the Casey case on occasion of yesterday’s Obamacare decision. The reason is that in both cases, the swing votes flipped. Kennedy with Casey and Roberts with Obamacare, according to Jan Greenburg’s book Supreme Conflict (pg. 155), Scalia and Kennedy took a walk near their homes shortly before the decision came out. Scalia went away thinking the conservatives could still count on Kennedy. But alas, we now know different.

    Nothing really new under the sun.

  • The worst scourge of the Supreme Court was Jan 22, 1973. We have lived under the pallor of death since that day. Nothing good will happen until that death sentence is stopped in it’s tracks. God is the only One we can “count” on to change the bitter hardened hearts of not only arrogant judges but misguided Christians. Rev 3 15-16.

  • A Catholic wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade. Kennedy is an alleged Catholic, and so is Roberts.

    We are our own worst enemy. No Protestant, Muslim or atheist has ever caused as much arm to the Catholic Church as bad Catholics.

    Sometimes, I too am a bad Catholic due to my thoughts and deeds, lest anyone think I only practice “j’accuse”.

  • Abortion kills a person. The United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said: “We do not know if it is a PERSON, so kill it anyway.” Thomas Jefferson said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”
    The Supreme Court said: “We do not know if there is a God, so get rid of Him, His Son and His followers.” Thomas Jefferson said: “…and endowed by their Creator”
    The Supreme Court said: “We may tax and penalize conscientious objectors to our killing of persons.” Thomas Jefferson said: “with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” The Ninth Amendment says that “the person has rights not enumerated in the Constitution” like conscientious objection to the killing of persons.
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in his Patriotism said that Thomas Jefferson believed in the dignity of man and in the sovereignty of God. St. Just, Thomas Jefferson’s opponent believed man had no inherent rights, that there was no God and violence was the only language to be spoken. 1) Terror, destruction of civil Liberty, confiscation of property. Government built upon a pile of corpses.
    2) Political Mysticism: My will or nothing.
    Spiritual Mysticism: God or nothing.
    3) Satanism: Destruction of law and order, violence. The new Violence.
    The choice is ours: Thomas Jefferson: God or nothing, or Obama: “My will or nothing”.

  • Until the recent Obamacare decision, my vote for “Worst Supreme Court Decision of All Time” would have been “Wickard v. Filburn”, the case that decided that interstate commerce included everything, including things that weren’t interstate and were not commerce (like growing wheat on your own land for your own use).

    Eliminate that one case, and perhaps as much as 85% to 90% of all the filth the government pushes would lose its “justification”.

    But now Roberts has informed us that non-taxes (penalties) are really taxes and constitutional, so anything can be justified by attaching a penalty and calling it a “tax”.

    In case anyone hasn’t figured it out, the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution for just such an occasion as appears to be forming… to ensure that oppressive government maybe overthrown, violently if necessary, by the People.

  • Pingback: The Worst Supreme Court Selections in American History | The American Catholic

Gosnell, Abortion and Reality

Saturday, January 22, AD 2011

 

“What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party — where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other?  You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!”

Abraham Lincoln, speech at New Haven Connecticut, March 6, 1860

Thirty-eight years ago today, the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade struck down the laws against abortion throughout the country on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.  The decision was, as Justice White noted in his dissent, a “raw exercise in judicial power”, as there was no basis at all in the Constitution to support the ruling.  Since that day approximately a million, on average, unborn children have been put to death each year, and a large and powerful faction has championed these deaths as right and proper and opposed all efforts to ban or restrict abortion.

It is fitting that as we observe this dreadful anniversary, the nation is shocked by the revelations at the murder mill run by abortionist Kermit Gosnell for over three decades.  As Paul noted in his post on Gosnell here last week the grand jury described his activities in gruesome detail and noted that he was able to do this only with the complicity of the local authorities:

We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.

The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to Gosnell, Abortion and Reality

  • Why am I not shocked?

    Those people hold the “trump card.” They totally support the “preferential option” for the poor . . . they (such as IL Sen. Obama who voted to de-criminalize this form of infanticide) get to orate at The University of Notre Dame . . .

  • Sorry, I don’t buy the line that “the nation is shocked” about this. In fact, the pro-choicers are all but defending the guy, as their comments on websites like Slate and Salon make it clear. Of course, they wish the place had been a little cleaner. But they have no problem at all with the purpose it served.

  • You are wrong Ron. Some of the pro-aborts are shocked:

    “Again, I am pro-choice but this tragedy occurred because the left violently resisted even the least regulatory oversight of even the most extreme late term abortions. The left has made abortion the highest good that trumps every other concern, and the resulting real-world policies border on the surreal.

    A school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin but any stranger can legally talk a 13 year old into an abortion at almost any term with no oversight whatsoever. The FDA paternalistically denies adults medicines and procedures that the FDA judges “unsafe” but allows children to decide about invasive medical procedures? WTF?

    All prominent Democrats claim to oppose third-term abortion except for cases that endanger the physical or psychological health of the mother. Of course, they leave out who the courts said gets to decide whether a necessary degree of physical or psychological danger existed: the woman and her doctor. So, after all the posturing, in the end the decision to kill a 8-month-and-29-day fetus rests in the same hands and has the same oversight as killing a two-week fetus.

    That’s insane.

    Hell, according to leftists, Gosnell’s only moral or technical crime was in not killing the babies inside the womb. Had he snaked a surgical instrument inside the womb and killed the viable baby there, he would be morally in the clear in the eyes of the left.

    That is insane.”

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/19228.html

    Additionally, the pro-aborts are not the nation. Their view of an unlimited abortion “liberty” is becoming an increasingly smaller viewpoint in this land. Gosnell and his murder mill will help make it even smaller.

  • Governor Tom Corbett is launching a probe, and what a fortuitous moment to have a newly elected pro-life governor of Pennsylvania:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/22/corbett-demands-probe-of-failure-to-regulate-abortion-clinics-in-pennsylvania/

  • Pingback: SUNDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I’ve never seen those Lincoln quotations before. Excellent.

Stupak Deal with Obama, The End of the Pro Life Democrat?

Sunday, March 21, AD 2010
    US Catholic Bishops: Executive Order Deal A Non-Starter:

    We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:

    “One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

    Richard Doerflinger
    U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion (Washington Post):

    Resolving an impasse with anti-abortion Democrats over the health-care reform legislation, President Obama announced Sunday that he will be issuing an executive order after the bill is passed “that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion,” according to a statement from the White House.

    “I’m pleased to announce we have an agreement,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said at a news conference announcing the deal.

  • “I think we’re witnessing Bart Stupak write the obit for the concept of the “pro-life Democrat” – Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review).

Further analysis of the text of the order:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

56 Responses to Stupak Deal with Obama, The End of the Pro Life Democrat?

  • Lopez is correct.

  • Stupak is either an idiot which I doubt or completely mendacious which I suspect is closer to the case. In any event, he has destroyed his credibility as a pro-lifer.

  • It’s all so tragic I can only laugh.

    Something big in this country is on the horizon, and its not going to be good for anyone with a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ next to their name. There is a horrendous reality that this country will be drastically and negatively different by 2020.

  • What a disappointment he turned out to be. I really admired his courage and conviction.

    That he would trade away his convictions for this handful of magic beans is really just depressing.

    Time to get started on nullification.

  • The Susan B. Anthony List on this fake deal:

    “An executive order on abortion funding would do nothing to fix the problems presented by the current health care reform legislation that the House is considering today. The very idea is a slap in the face to the pro-life movement and should be offensive to all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim. The courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders.

    “If this was a sincere attempt to meet pro-life concerns then you would hear the cry of pro-choice Members and groups. Rather Rep. Diana Degette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus told The Huffington Post on Saturday that ‘If there was an executive order saying they weren’t going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me, because we’ve stipulated to that even though we don’t like it, That’s the compromise we came to way back in July.’

    “In the end, no pro-life Member of Congress could, in good conscience, play politics with the lives of hundreds of unborn children. If they do, there will be a quick downhill slide to defeat on Election Day.”

  • Linda Goldthorpe is Stupak’s likely opponent in the Fall. Assuming she wins the primary I’ll be sending her a hundred bucks.

    http://www.lindaforcongress.com/issues/right-to-life

  • I agree with Donald, the concept/idea of a pro-life Democrat is gone. Finished.

    Stupak got his bag of silver.

  • Tito,
    Just figuring that out now, huh?

  • Stupak said the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7. If that’s the case, this is the best deal pro-lifers could’ve gotten.

  • Daledog,

    Someone as dense as I am figure things out eventually.

    I am still much a like a child, I believe a man’s word at face value.

    I’d make a terrible politician.

  • RR,

    For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?

    –Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:26

  • “If that’s the case, this is the best deal pro-lifers could’ve gotten.”

    Nothing is rarely a good deal for the recipient restrainedradical and the is what Stupak got. An Executive Order cannot contradict a law passed by Congress. If Stupak believes that he got anything from this charade other than the lasting enmity of the vast majority of all pro-lifers, than he is an utter fool, which I doubt.

  • To be fair — elected officials are hardly ever as strident, passionate, and committed to any issue as are those fighting in the trenches. That said, there is very few members of Congress who are as pro-life as non-elected pro-life Americans. Given the fact that someone fails to live up to their own principles and standards, that is a moral failing, but that hardly negates the validity of their political philosophy.

    In fact, for the number of pro-life Democrats in this country and the two I’ve talked to in the last hour troubled by the latest news hardly means in my view that being a pro-life Democrat is now an oxymoron. If it is, then I am an oxymoron and I am a counter-cultural warrior — to hell with the status quo.

  • K-Lo says:
    “I think we’re witnessing Bart Stupak write the obit for the concept of the “pro-life Democrat”

    There seems to be a never-ending shortage of dopey Catholics who will fall for the next pro-life democrat. Republicans are icky and mean, you see.

  • Seriously, there are still pro-life Democrats voting against the legislation and are not convinced of the current strategy that Stupak and a few other Democrats have co-signed themselves onto.

    I think they deserve to not catch the heat.

  • Christopher, let us look at the discussion on executive decisions a bit:

    Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year.

    So, let’s see, Hyde was seen as good enough in a previous time, when the question of “Hyde could be over-ruled and rejected in the future” remained. In other words, we see here an argument can be built upon acceptance of Hyde itself — it has been used to justify all kinds of things under Bush’s rule, for example. Hyde was protecting everything, so Bush’s budgets didn’t get such a serious questioning — even when he gave an increase of funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. So, it seems that Hyde was good enough for many of the voices now speaking out against it’s application now. Seems clear that something is wrong here.

    Now, let us look further. We will begin to see it is an issue of advice given to the bishops. There is no charism given to bishops in selecting the best advisers nor any given to the advisers as to what is best (look to the child abuse scandal for proof of this). The fact that we are being told they reject such a move is from advisers indicates the kind of authority by which this decision is made: it is one which is open to debate and question and disagreement. Hence we read:

    The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence.

    So it is not a top-down proof that executive decisions are not appropriate. Indeed, without giving full details about who all these advisers are and what they all have said and why they said what they said, we are going on a very low level of teaching authority based upon an interpretation of matters outside of competence of bishops.

    —-

    “When the hierarchy is faced by a conflict of opinions in the church, it does not always succeed in achieving a perfectly adequate response. Broadly speaking, two kinds of mistake are possible – excessive permissiveness and excessive rigidity. It is hard to know which of the two errors has done more harm.”

    “We must recognize, therefore, that there can be such a thing in the church as mutable or reformable teaching. The element of mutability comes from the fact that such teaching seeks to mediate between the abiding truth of the gospel and the socio-cultural situation at a given time and place.”

    “Did Vatican II teach the legitimacy of dissent from non-infallible teaching? It did so implicitly by its action, we may say, but not explicitly by its words. The theological commission responsible for paragraph 25 of the Constitution of the Church refused to make any statement, one way or the other, about dissent.”

    “A step beyond the council was taken by the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967, which has been quoted on several occasions by Karl Rahner. This letter recognized that in its effort to apply the gospel to the changing situations of life, the church is obliged to give instructions that have a certain provisionality about them. These instructions, though binding to a certain degree, are subject to error. According to the bishops, dissent may be legitimate provided that three conditions are observed. (1) One must have striven seriously to attach positive value to the teaching in question and to appropriate it personally. (2) One must seriously ponder whether one has the theological expertise to disagree responsibly with ecclesiastical authority. (3) One must examine one’s conscience for possible conceit, presumptuousness, or selfishness. Similar principles for conscientious dissent had already been laid down by John Henry Newman in the splendid chapter on Conscience in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1874).”

    “There is always a temptation for church authorities to try to use their power to stamp out dissent. The effort is rarely successful, because dissent simply seeks another forum, where it may become even more virulent. To the extent that the suppression is successful, it may also do harm. It inhibits good theology from performing its critical task, and it is detrimental to the atmosphere of freedom in the church. The acceptance of true doctrine should not be a matter of blind conformity, as though truth could be imposed by decree. The church, as a society that respects the freedom of the human conscience, must avoid procedures that savor of intellectual tyranny.

    Where dissent is kept within the bounds I have indicated, it is not fatal to the church as a community of faith and witness. If it does occur, it will be limited, reluctant, and respectful.”

    Avery Dulles http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm

  • K-Lo talking about being pro-life: hilarious.

  • Karlson taking about being pro-life: barf worthy.

  • If the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7, the executive order saves pro-lifers some face.

  • “If the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7, the executive order saves pro-lifers some face.”

    Appearing to be an utter fool restrainedradical saves no any face. By definition any one trusting in this exectutive order from the most pro-abort president in our nation’s history is an utter fool.

  • Seems to me that if the bill had enough votes w/out the Stupak 7, then no executive order would have been proffered.

  • I think they deserve to not catch the heat.

    They can catch the heat for what they did not do to repair the financial system while they were needlessly chuffering about medical insurance and what they did do to make our public finances resemble those of Greece.

  • I wonder if the U.S. bishops should be held partially responsible for the passage of this bill? They did lobby VERY hard to get it to this point, not knowing if they would get the wording they wanted.

  • Tito,
    They ought to be held responsible. These fools have been playing footsie with liberal politics for much too long. One day is too long as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that their plate is full with their own problems.

  • No Tito, the bishops lobbied for something to address the medical needs of those who can ill afford proper care. That is a legitimate concern and there are many ways to work toward it. The problem is that what the current congress and president offers as a solution. A solution that many believe will cause more harm than good, plus has all the unpleasantness of what that party stands for like considering the killing of the unborn to be health care. It’s not really within the competence of the bishops to speak to whether any given policy is unworkable or will bust the nation economically, but they’re well within their competence to discuss the morality of certain policies – to define what they are lobbying for when they say appropriate health care for all (they’re including the unborn, the elderly, and the infirm).

  • Yes, lobbying for the poor should not go unpunished.

  • Oh stop hiding behind the poor.

    This monstrous bill will ensure that many thousands of poor children would would have otherwise been born because their mother’s can’t afford abortions will now be sliced and diced in the womb. It’s poor children that suffer the most from government funded abortion.

  • Restrained,
    How silly. You care about the poor, huh? Give more. Work extra hours so that you can give more. Encourage others to give more. No need to lobby Caesar. Gifts from Caesar always have strings attached. Do you feel better about yourself when you can force others to give more?

  • I think the bishops should be held somewhat responsible.

    Let’s see if they work equally as hard to get this “law” revoked.

    I doubt that resolve will be as diligent.

  • Here’s the bottom line: you can’t be Democrat and a legitimate orthodox Catholic – period. You maybe can be a Republican. It’s bets however to be a member of the Constitution Part because their platform is closest to the teaching of Holy Mother Church though they won’t be USCCB approved because they don’t believe in all this social justice, common good nonsense and free health care for illegal immigrants. Personal responsibility goes with person liberty and that’s a lesson lost on most Catholics for the past 50 years. Pelosi, Biden, Leahy and all the rest of the Catholic apostates will continue to receive Holy Communion and nothing the USCCB says or does means a damn.

    Every single liberal politician has got to be publicly excommunicated and the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price has got to be jettisoned. Until that happens, the Church in America is a worthless collection of dirty old gay men at 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 playing at religion.

  • You guys simply don’t like the truth. Moderate away. God will have to sweep the liberals aside in His wrath. That’s the only way you’ll learn. The only way.

  • The Executive Order is already null and void:

    1. As an executive order, it is secondary in power to any law of the land as interpreted by the courts — unless the legislative and judicial branches have just ceded its power to the executive, and we are in a dictatorship.

    2. As an executive order, it is binding only on the activity of the executive branch, not on the private providers who would provide abortions.

    3. Roe v. Wade obliges any legislation offering medical benefits to cover abortion unless some section in that legislation, such as the Hyde amendment, specifically excludes abortion. This legislation lacks the Hyde exclusion; therefore, this legislation falls under the Roe requirement. The Executive Order, even if it were not null and void, is written not to match the Hyde Amendment language, but rather to match the Senate legislation language which, as we all know, falls short of Hyde.

    As such, the order offers no prevention of federally funded abortion even if it bore any authority.

    4. And of course, Obama will deep-six the executive order whenever he might find it convenient. If somehow it is not a nullity, he will do so: He has never claimed to be pro-life. And if it is not a nullity, he will not need to vacate it, for it will have accomplished its intended goal without costing him the support of NARAL.

    Of course, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, none of this would be a problem.

    But we all know, don’t we, that it’s foolish for pro-lifers to harp so much on the need to overturn that decision.

    It’s counterproductive. It uses up resources that could be more profitably spent courting centrist Democrats and exploring our common ground.

    We know that, this late in the day, it is no longer time for concern about Supreme Court justices and the presidents who select them; it is time to focus on new tactics involving engagement with pro-life Democrats.

    That’s the lesson we learned, back during the 2008 election cycle.

    Everyone remember that?

    Let’s also keep in mind another lesson we learned that year: “Signing statements” are a tyrannical overreach of executive power in which George W. Bush altered the meaning of Congressional legislation at signing, a risky proposition and bad precedent which clearly indicated the need to switch parties in the White House for awhile, lest the occupant of the People’s House start to think his authority trumped that of the legislative branch.

    Must remember that. That was one of those timeless truths for the ages.

    I’ll lay aside my trowel, now: Whatever Babylonian tower we’re building in this country is already in danger of collapse from the sheer weight of the irony.

  • Good post R.C.

    We do need to overturn Roe and we do need to reject signing statements. If I didn’t understand it before, I sure as heck understand it now.

    I think the next step is nullification at the state level.

  • “Here’s the bottom line: you can’t be Democrat and a legitimate orthodox Catholic – period.”

    I beg to differ.

  • We need you in Congress, Eric. =)

  • Paul,

    You will only be moderated if your comment violates our rules for comments.

  • Do you feel better about yourself when you can force others to give more?

    Yes.

  • Yes, lobbying for the poor should not go unpunished.

    Yeah, the poor will do real well after a sovereign default.

  • He never planned on fighting. Rep. Bart Stupak speaking in Cheboygan, MI

  • The bishops must take a large amount of blame for this monstrous piece of legislation for several reasons:

    1. Failure to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians and force them to choose between their pro-abortion positions and their desire to receive the sacraments. (This has been going on for four decades)

    2. The Bishops’ push for “universal health care.”

    The big question is: why did the bishops stay on board with this legislation as long as they did?

    The only answer that makes sense is that the bishops favor socialism… big government programs as solutions to their “social justice” aims.

    If this means invasive government intrusion into our lives, so be it. If it means massive tax increases, so be it. If it means wealth redistribution, so be it.

    When it was obvious to many of us that the bill was unacceptable on so many fronts, one could only wonder why the bishops continued to push for it so hard, as long as they got their three concessions (abortion, conscience, immigrants).

    I am saddened, disgusted, and disheartened by the bishops’ push for socialized medicine. How can I have respect for them? Happily, my faith is firmly in Jesus Christ, no matter what the American church’s hierarchy says or does.

  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

    Indeed. Restrained reveals his/her petty little totalitarian heart, mistaking the desire to rule and coerce others for “compassion.” If a majority of people in this country think in those terms, democracy is doomed. But I don’t think they do (thank God) and I don’t believe we are doomed yet. There will be a reckoning in November. Those of us who attended tea parties, called our Congressmen, and donated to those who opposed this monstrosity of a bill are not going away and we will not forget the open contempt the Democratic Party has shown toward us. I have sometimes voted Democrat in local elections – never again.

  • Obama has now done something I didn’t think would ever be possible: make me more ashamed to be an Illinois resident than Governor Hairdo ever did. (Speaking of The Hair, did Trump fire him from “Celebrity Apprentice” yet?) If it hadn’t been for our crooked Chicago machine and pathetic, desperate joke of a GOP organization, he might never have been elected Senator and none of this would have happened.

  • Well, Mr. R. Radical was merely telling the truth: he does not believe in the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” because that is exactly what forcing others to be virtuous inevitably involves. In a bizarre way that puts him in a better place than the G.O.P. who are still somehow convinced that their thefts are not as terrible because they simply love America more, or some nonsense.

    For anyone who is appalled at what is happening right now: Don’t worry. Economics will win. We should just pray that people aren’t hurt when that terrible day comes.

  • Donald: Stupak’s likely GOP opponent in the November is a conservative pro-life physician named Dan Benishek. His Facebook page is growing by the minute.
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=share&gid=287806148754

    His site has an address. I never heard of the man until about 20 minutes ago. I’m writing him a check tonight.

    As for Stupak, well, he got his 30 pieces of silver:

    “U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.”

    Betraying your conscience for Wales is one thing, but for three airports in the UP? Now there’s a cheap date.

  • Democrats for Death is more apropos.

    It’s “Game On” for me and the bishops.

    The USCCB is in for some heavy fire coming my way.

    The deaths of many innocent unborn children will be on their hands.

  • Tito, why would you want to pit yourself against the vicars of Christ? It doesn’t seem like a terribly wise idea. Besides, they did not vote for this legislation, nor did they support it. They were one of the few voices saying it was unacceptable, and reminding people that while trying to ensure everyone gets medical care whether they can afford it or not is a a good, that it can’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

    The behavior of Catholics who put the Democratic agenda above concerns for life is upsetting, but that wasn’t the bishops – the bishops took a pounding from them!

  • RL,

    I agree with what you are saying.

    Though too many times is seems that the USCCB is just another wing of the Democratic Party rather than vicars of Christ.

    With Democratic Pro-Abort operatives infesting the USCCB along with atheists that endorse anti-Catholic films, and our donations going to abortion facilities and gay marriage advocates (do I need to continue?, there’s more…)

  • I’m not blind to some of the dysfunction within the organization. But let’s be clear, those issues are usually caused by the bureaucrats within. Yeah, some aspects of the USCCB need to be looked at and overhauled, but the bishops themselves got involved in this one – and in real time – and offered solid and informed guidance, holding principles of justice and moderation above their own desires to see some sort of reform. We can and should be very proud of the prophetic witness they gave throughout this process. This ain’t the 1975 NCCB anymore!

  • RL & CB,

    Unlike abortion, we can disagree with our bishops on universal health care.

    They are violating the principle of subsidiarity.

    If they would be this adamant about ending abortion in America, I could agree with their aggressive nature towards universal health coverage, but they don’t.

    The USCCB is not the magisterium, not a teaching authority, and are an invention by Democratic leaning bishops.

    It needs to be absolved. If not, then completely overhauled.

    Until that happens, I will expose them for what they are, a wing of the Democratic party and participants in promoting the Culture of Death.

  • Ever hear of the phrase “throw out the baby with the bathwater”?

  • The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

    – Saint John Chrysostom.

    CB,

    In all seriousness I know what you’re getting at so an overhaul is reasonable since my idea of eliminating the USCCB won’t fly… yet.

  • Pingback: November 2009, Stupak Never Intended to Vote No on ObamaCare « The American Catholic
  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

    Restrained reveals his/her petty little totalitarian heart, mistaking the desire to rule and coerce others for “compassion.”

    Mr. R. Radical was merely telling the truth: he does not believe in the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” because that is exactly what forcing others to be virtuous inevitably involves.

    I don’t think God disapproves of taxation.

"a sad infidelity to America's highest ideals"

Friday, January 22, AD 2010

[N]o one in the world who prizes liberty and human rights can feel anything but a strong kinship with America. Yours is the one great nation in all of history that was founded on the precept of equal rights and respect for all humankind, for the poorest and weakest of us as well as the richest and strongest.

As your Declaration of Independence put it, in words that have never lost their power to stir the heart: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” A nation founded on these principles holds a sacred trust: to stand as an example to the rest of the world, to climb ever higher in its practical realization of the ideals of human dignity, brotherhood, and mutual respect. Your constant efforts in fulfillment of that mission, far more that your size or your wealth or your military might, have made America an inspiration to all mankind.

It must be recognized that your model was never one of realized perfection, but of ceaseless aspiration. From the outset, for example, America denied the African slave his freedom and human dignity. But in time you righted that wrong, albeit at an incalculable cost in human suffering and loss of life.

Your impetus has almost always been toward a fuller, more all embracing conception and assurance of the rights that your founding fathers recognized as inherent and God-given.
Yours has ever been an inclusive, not an exclusive, society. And your steps, though they may have paused or faltered now and then, have been pointed in the right direction and have trod the right path. The task has not always been an easy one, and each new generation has faced its own challenges and temptations. But in a uniquely courageous and inspiring way, America has
kept faith.

Yet there has been one infinitely tragic and destructive departure from those American ideals in recent memory.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...