Justice John Paul Stevens Announces His Retirement. We Need a Pro-Life Justice

Catholic Online ^ | 4/10/10 | Deacon Keith Fournier

[tcg]

On Friday, April 9, 2010 a significant retirement announcement made the National news, Justice John Paul Stephens is leaving the bench. His departure must be a rallying cry for all those who recognize the true fundamental human rights issue of our age, the right to life from conception to natural death.

Justice Stevens is by all accounts a gentleman and an intellectual. His demeanor has earned him the respect and admiration of many, including his colleagues on the bench who disagreed with many of his judicial opinions. The most notably wrong among those opinions was his support of the majority in the horrendous 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey. In that case the Court left in place the egregious holding foisted upon the Nation in the opinions of Roe and Doe, essentially denying the preeminent and fundamental human Right to Life to an entire class of persons, our youngest neighbors, children in the womb.

Two sentences from that horrid opinion call to light the fundamental failure of the current Jurisprudence which is undermining true liberty in of our Nation, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Talk about what Pope Benedict rightly identified as the "Dictatorship of Relativism"! ...

There can be no doubt of how the supporters of killing children in the womb under the newspeak pretext of "choice"- and having it protected as a "right" by the Police Power of the State - consider Justice Stevens' significance. ...

[DallasSun]

That is not going to happen

[rockhardo]

Stevens was the only Protestant justice left on the Supreme Court.

I fail to see the relevance of religion. Look. I have a better idea. Either get rid of the Supreme Court, or make all judges elected with term limits. Do we really need a small cadre of un-accountable elitists ruling us? I don't believe the original intent was to give them the power to rule on Constitutionality. John Marshall arrogated it to himself, and there was no way to get rid of him. Does anyone think the Court will ever voluntarily reduce the power it has? Congress loves having the Court legislating, it gives them more time to spend with hookers and lobbyists, and it gives them a great cop-out for doing what they don't have to guts to do. I say get rid of the Supreme COurt.

[OCCASparky]

If that were an option, I’d agree with you completely.

[ivyleaguebrat]

Do we not require a body with the power to rule on constitutionality? If not the Court, then who?

[wmfights]

Stevens was the only Protestant justice left on the Supreme Court.

I would take Alito over Miers. He seems to be pretty solid.

I really don't see any Born Again Christians on the court for a long time. Politicians like BAC's to vote for them but don't want them near any real power. BAC's are too rooted in the Word and that has too many rules.

[rockhardo]

No. Many modern nations have no Supreme Court and they get along well without them. The Constitution isn’t viewed as much of a hindrance anymore. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection law admitting that he knew it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is a political body with no political accountability. They are no protection against unconstitutional laws, in fact, they cement unconstitutional laws in stone. The only way to force them to pay attention to the Constitution would be to have the power to vote them out of office. Voters are the ones who should have power to rule on Constitutionality.