Posted on 01/31/2006 12:54:25 PM PST by Jhohanna
SAN FRANCISCO - An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal law banning 'partial-birth' abortion is unconstitutional, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is at stake.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Get serious.
One never does well by considering nothing but one's own strengths, and the opposition's weaknesses.
And it's not like fortunes of war can't turn in a day..."
Get serious about WHAT?
Men do not generally change in a day, and men in high station very rarely change at all.
When I say that committed Catholic men are going to oppose abortion, it's a statement of fact. It's as serious as a heart attack, and it's true.
Men judge things through their filters of justice. And some filters are very clearly identifiable. Committed Catholic = abortion is wrong. Sort of like gay agenda environmentalist = vituperatively anti-Bush. Put a gay agenda environmentalist on the high court, and you know how he's going to rule on gay agenda environmentalist issues.
Put a devout Catholic on the high court, and you know what his sentiments about abortion are, and the track down which he is likely to rule.
That's as serious as can be.
And it IS as though the fortunes of war cannot turn in a day.
They can't. Attitudes are for life, and so are court appointments. And general distribution of things like religion in a population are demographic issues that take generations to change. These things can't just "snap!" turn in a day, because are not fortunes of war. They are much more like the terrain of the land: the mountains and hills. Those things change very slowly if they ever change at all.
ok... so when the five Catholic justices overturn the death penalty based not on the constitution, but on their church's position, that will be OK, too?
You're working backwards from the result you want, and that's dangerous. When "because my church says so" becomes an acceptable judicial argument, then you'll have to accept it when people of other faiths use it.
It's short-sighted and un-American.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'm failing to discuss the issue at hand, because I am categorically rejecting your premise that anyone here thinks "it's acceptable for a judge to rely solely on his religious beliefs to interpret the constitution [sic] or the law." One of the things that seems to have escaped your notice is the distinction between an activist justice, and an originalist justice.
Judicial activism is illegitimate on its face, so the notion that a Catholic judicial activist is somehow scarier than a secular judicial activist is to use bigotry to distract from the fact that judicial activism is the crime, not why the activism was perpetrated.
If a justice's Catholicism is demanding Roe v. Wade be struck down, it is not because abortion is a heinous crime against humanity, but because the legal underpinning is totally without merit and constitutes a limited judicial coup d'etat on the Constitution. There are legitimate means for changing the Constitution, and fiat rulings by justices with inferiority complexes isn't one of them.
How can murdering defenseless little people be a protected right, anywhere, at any time and for any reason?
It would seem you have succumbed to the same oversight as the other poster. It is not a Catholic justice's place to be activist in implementing the policies of the Church. Remember Naaman the Syrian.
There.... now was that so hard?
It turns out we agree. Judicial activism is unacceptable.
Ask a black person why they get so belligerent about the word "n****r" and you'll have your answer.
I caught most of this discussion late and don't have the time tonight to catch up, but to get to the nub: in what, if any, moral basis does our Constitution derive its basis?
Anybody?
Natural law.
Are you sure about that?
Well you have to admit your question is pretty open ended. What are you looking for?
And more than a little stilted I might add...
Just wondering what you really believe.
You believe that the Constitution is based in Natural Law.
Do you believe Natural Law is in and of itself, moral?
Were the Framers Naturalists?
Going with your own answer, do you believe that Natural Law is a derivative of morality, vice-versa, or are they two separate standards/codes of conduct?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You attacked me in 3 posts having nothing to do with the content of what I said. Now I'm supposed to figure out how something I said became equivalent to saying "n****r" to a black person?
You're incoherent when you go off-topic.
I'm no legal scholar or academic, but I'm of the opinion that Natural Law is inherently moral and hardwired into the human psyche in the way outlined by C.S. Lewis.
Interesting. Thank you very much!
The flesh is aware of what is going on in and on it.
The soul is aware of what is going on around it.
The spirit is aware of what is above it.
Do you agree with those three statements to any degree?
Quit your whining and actually READ what I wrote instead of puling about being attacked.
I did write for the purpose of communicating something to you, you know.
Aside from any specialized definitions of the terms used I'd say my understanding of those statements is fairly positive.
Mind you, my assent is qualified by my own ignorance of what appears to be a formula of which I am not familiar.
Understood. In light of that, could it be possible that Natural Law is only one leg of a 3-legged stool that holds a (moral) society together? We know that (immoral) societies do not last, correct?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm not aware of *any* society that "lasts." They all seem to have a life cycle that is accelerated or retarded by certain moral aspects of their existence. What are the other two legs you are refering to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.