so, gw bush nominated alito in replacement of harriet miers. i really know little to nothing about either of these two. but, i think think i'm already against this guy. it's not just party lines, issues, or personal preference.
what it may just come down to is this:
"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called the pick "a grand-slam home run." Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who joined allies on the right to challenge Miers nomination, said, "Now with Judge Alito the battle is where it belongs; it's a battle against the president's avowed political enemies." so, the battle is with political enemies? i thought the battle was to nominate a judge that would actually represent the ideals of the united states as laid out in the constitution. apparantly, it's a matter of being able to say 'we won and you lost' rather than actually doing what is right.
and frankly, it doesn't bother me that he is supoorted by conservatives. but these tow people speaking out in your behalf is a stamp of disapproval for me. it doesn't bother me that he is anti-abortion. that is a consistant stance with his religious beliefs (he is catholic. amazingly, he actually follows their doctrine.) honestly, i am against abortion on a personal level, although i'm not sure about making it law. but i do think we should speak out against it, and definately speak out louder for alternatives.
oh yeah, and as further cronyism, alito was nominated to the appeals court by daddy bush.
15 comments:
Ed said:
(he is catholic. amazingly, he actually follows their doctrine.)
Steve says:
Hmmm...Where is he on the death penalty?
okay, i don't know that one. i just find it odd when people go against a clear doctrine, like that of the catholic church. at least we protestants can say, well, there's no one @ the top (pope), other than God. now God, God is prolife.
like, you have cats like kerry, kennedy and such that say they are devout but that it doesn't apply to the politics. i tend to find that disingenuous (fahq spelling). or, you have cats that claim to be evangelical that say we should assassinate people, go to war, and so on. also seems contradictory to me.
but the death penalty question, that should be looked into. because how do you say you're catholic, so you follow dogma in one area, and not in another. because, as you know, the catholic church also takes a firm stance against the death penalty.
Yeah, I'm in agreement with you for the most part. It just galls me that it only ever seems to go one way. You never hear about a catholic being a hypocrite because they disagree with their church on the death penalty, only about abortion. Kerry was gonna be denied the freaking sacraments of his church, but I don't think Santorum or any other high profile conservative catholic has had to walk that line over the death penalty.
Furthermore, I understand what you are saying about people like Kerry who say their faith doesn't inform their politics. If it is just a "hey don't worry I'm not a religious nut" pander, I feel frustrated because I want to tell them that it doesn't have to be that way- I wouldn't be a lefty if I didn't think it was significantly more in synch with God.
How should any of this have anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice and interpreting the Consitution? These judges are not supposed to be infering things from a document based on their personal religious dogmas, practices, beliefs, or whatever. Maybe a Catholic judge shouldn't be able to reconcile the differences in his religious doctrine and a secular political document. Just because "the catholic church also takes a firm stance against the death penalty" does not mean a Catholic judge should apply what the Pope says to one of our non-Catholic founding documents.
OK, a little google magic later and it seems that Alito is...a death penalty enforcer, at least, if not an active proponent. Amazingly, I had a difficult time finding clear evidence either way.
I don't disagree with you, Adam. The point (for me anyway) has been that the arguments cut both ways, and that if the so-called American Christian constituency really expects that putting a Christian on the court is a big deal, then it means more than abortion policy. This also cuts to the heart of the argument re: the role of Christians in public life. I suppose it has a bit to do with whether or not you assume that this nation was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. I don't subscribe to that belief.
To me this whole nomination process just goes to show that American Politics has become an embarasing game. Our country doesn't seem to matter to those running it. Both sides seem to only care about their side and their agenda and their winning. Who cares how it affects Joe Blow American. Who cares if a nominee for Supreme Court can do a good job at interpreting the Consitution. The only thing that matters is if your guy wins. As far as religion goes. It is the same thing. Morals and convictions of politicians only matter as far as it helps them to win the game.
Maybe I'm just having a cynical moment, but I wonder if it matters who is in office. Maybe the system is goofed or maybe it is because people are goofed.
I know that back in the Anabaptist reformation there were some that believed that the Sword(government) although ordained by God was an entity that corrupted people. They thought it impossible for a beliver to be part of it and still hold true to their faith.
Much of what we see today is the same. Whether it is Clinton attending church after banging an intern or Bush saying he is against abortion, but then for the death penalty or all the other so called devout politicians saying one thing and doing another. Almost all of which is for poltical gain. Either for them or for their party.
O.K. I'm done ranting. Maybe I make no sense at all who knows. I am not strong at arguing politcial stuff. I just know what bugs me.
these are good comments. i'm enjoying it for now.
as to adam's question, i think religious affiliation, or lack there of, will influence how one reads/interprets/judges the constitutionality because theoretically it will influence your whole life. if your faith is in pure rationalism, then everything should be backed by that. if your faith is in a Creator, then your life should live out according to that. if that Creator relationship has a human intermediatiary (is that a word?) like a pope, then your life should also reflect their decrees. thinking back to my fpu experience, the in vogue word was paradigm. or worldview. whatever your worldview is, it will influence how you say, judge the constitutionality of law. i believe this to be true whatever worldview you ascribe to.
but, i also think that it's crap if we're nominating people to positions simply to win a political game, to set up a system so our party is in power longer, etc. i would hope that whatever judge, etc that is put into power is really done for the best interest of all americans, not just the ones that follow the current regime
Ed, you're right, if you going to subscribe to a belief, then you should probably go all in. The point of my argument is that judges are supposed to set aside personal prejudices, paradigms, whatever you want to call them when they interpret the constitution, so it shouldn't matter if a judge is Catholic, Buddhist, Native American, or Athiest. None of that should enter into the courtroom. It's called separation of church and state.
I would have to agree with all of the above. I think there is clear precedent for the idea of seperating your individual beliefs from the application of the constitution, however I think that in reality it is impossible to do. What you believe will always effect your understanding to some degree, in a Fruedian sense you can never escape your subconsious.
However, I think that Judges should be aware of this, and should strive to seperate their own person social values from the application of the constitution. With what I have been reading about Alito suggests that he has been able to do this. In two cases he struck down state attempts to limit abortion, and in one ruled that funding should be provided for poor women in cases of rape or incest. In both cases he was ruling according to how the laws were written, not according to his opposition to abortion. I also agree with his ruling that husbands should be notified and be part of the decision. There are concession in cases of abuse, and I realize it is a comlicated issue, but I think it is wrong to discount the father offhand. I get the feeling that his opinion is that abortion is wrong, but that legally it should be available and safe, based on case precedent.
By the way I don't think that politicians should try to seperate their religious beliefs from government. I think they should feel free to express what they believe, but I think they should vote according to their constituency. They are representatives.
re: Adam's comments, it would be easier to, as you say, have judges who interpret the const. without any baggage, but the const. is vague in terms of things of modern consequence, thus inviting paersonal views into the picture. For instance, abortion would be inconceivable to Jefferson, at least as a matter of law. 2nd amendment- if they knew there would one day be a gun more dangerous than a musket, I guarantee that document would be more carefully worded.
re: Tom's comments, I'm inclined to agree with everything you said, except:
"but I wonder if it matters who is in office."
because I would bet the farm that if Gore had won/been selected/whatever in 2000, we would not be in Iraq right now. And I think that is significant.
PS: I sometimes try to imagine bringing Jefferson & Madison through a time machine (SNL did this once) and have them explain more clearly, but can you imagine trying to catch them up on 225 years of historical context for the arguments?
have you heard the guy on the radio that answers questions like he was jefferson? its sorta interesting.
hmmm...I'll have to find that.
the show is called The Thomas Jefferson Hour, it's a guy named Clay Jenkins. the site is
http://www.th-jefferson.org/
They don't play it on the NPR station up here.
Post a Comment