Thursday, November 1, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
On a Vox Nova thread about interdicting pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the issue of withholding communion from judges came up. Here's what DarwinCatholic had to say:
I think you will find conservatives, myself included, all too willing to see Roberts excommunicated should he actually rule to keep Roe v. Wade. The thing is, he hasn’t, nor has he said with any clarity that he would. Indeed, both those who want to see Roe gone and those who want it to stay seem to agree he is highly likely to vote to overturn it.
Thus, when you say that Roberts should be sanctioned, you come off as sounding strictly partisan rather than actually having strong pro-life feelings.
Had Kennedy’s bishop excommunicated him back at the time of PP v. Casey, I certainly would not have had a problem with it.
I must say that I think this is a horrifically bad idea. Not only would it mean punishing a justice for (as far as the bishop knows, secular law not being within his area of competence) doing his job honestly and correctly, it would give Schumer and co. a good reason to hang a "No Serious Catholics Need Apply" sign over the SJC. I'm not sure I'd blame them much if Catholic jurists had to choose between abusing their power to come to Catholic-friendly conclusions they think the constitution doesn't support, resigning, or being excommunicated/interdicted whenever their bishop took a firm stand on a case.
Given the choices, resignation is obviously the best one. So, if Darwin's idea were to be put into practice, being a judge would become one of the growing list of jobs Catholics shouldn't take. If that turned out to be the case the country would be much worse off for it.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Me: Nothing would give me more joy than to take credit for Rudy getting beat without actually having to actively support Hillary in any way. In the long run at least he is worse for my issues.