Roe Call - Sign this petition if you're interested!

[Wilsmom]

If you would like the newly nominated Judge John Roberts to express his views on abortion before the Senate votes to elect him, please follow this link and sign the petition. This petition was started by Planned Parenthood, and they need 100,000 votes by September 1.

http://ppaction.org/campaign/roberts_roeCall2?rk=u1_RwUp1fXiRW

[MLA]

signed it.

[Quartercentury]

Me too!

(I have always wondered, though, just how much good on-line petitions do. Any ideas? As much impact as paper versions?)

[Kaleidoscope]

I signed also.

[paiger]

I was just coming in here to post this!! I signed and posted it in my LJ!

[IrishMeg]

I signed it and sent to several others to sign as well. :)

[Neen]

I signed it too and sent it on to others!!

[cocoa_femme]

I signed it as well. Also sent it to others.

[dionysia]

Signed when I got the email this morning from PP. ;)

Di

[Irish Elf]

Signed

[artist]

Thanks for posting that. I signed it.

[Delta]

OK, so his personal beliefs are not pertinent to the law and he is under no obligation whatsoever to state them. But, I can certainly understand why people want to know.

His wife was VP of Feminists for Life at one time. He is Catholic. I think I can surmise that he is probably pro-life in his personal views.

Suppose he does state that he is pro-life. Then what? Do you just want to know? Or does this disqualify him from the court in your eyes?

[msnicolea]

It disqualifies him in my eyes, yes. Roe v. Wade is in very real danger and I will never support a judicial nominee who won't uphold a woman's right to choose. However, I undertsand the flip side of that, as well--I suspect that if Kerry were the one making the nomination and it was an obviously pro-choice nominee, the right-to-lifers would be expressing the same concerns.

[hockeybrat]

I signed.

[amew]

OK, so his personal beliefs are not pertinent to the law and he is under no obligation whatsoever to state them. But, I can certainly understand why people want to know.

I agree that he isn't under an obligation to state his views on this (though I wish he would, and I have signed the petition), though I disagree that his views aren't pertinent. As for whether being pro-life should disqualify him from the Court, my view is that he could not reasonably be disqualified because of pro-life views if he is willing and able to consider any abortion cases that come before the Court on a case by case basis and consistent with the Constitution and legal precedent. If he is, however, unwilling and/or unable as a result of his personal and/or religious beliefs to openly consider any abortion cases before the Court, then I think that should be grounds for disqualification. I.e., if a Justice's Catholic beliefs would never, under any circumstances allow him or her to uphold a right to abortion in any case (regardless of precedent or statutes in effect at the time), I do not think he/she should be on the Court. Along the same lines, I would not approve of a member of the Court whose religious beliefs would never allow him to join in opinions approving of interracial marriage (or same sex marriage, for that matter). To use an example from the other side, if a nominee testified that her personal beliefs would require her to support the right to abortion in all cases regardless of the facts of the case or the relevant law, I would (grudingly) agree that she probably shouldn't be on the Court. The bottom line for me is that a nominee's beliefs cannot be such that they would prevent him/her from looking at each case with an open mind. Having beliefs that dictate the outcome of any case involving a given topic regardless of the facts is, IMO, inconsistent with the idea of an independent judiciary.

[Delta]

It disqualifies him in my eyes, yes. Roe v. Wade is in very real danger and I will never support a judicial nominee who won't uphold a woman's right to choose. However, I undertsand the flip side of that, as well--I suspect that if Kerry were the one making the nomination and it was an obviously pro-choice nominee, the right-to-lifers would be expressing the same concerns.
So, in your opinion, Catholics can't be on the Supreme Court (unless they forsake a major tenent of their faith?)

I personally don't have a litmus test when it comes to abortion and judges. I am pro-life, but also very wary of abortion being outlawed completely. I do think Roe itself is bad law, there are even some prochoicers who believe that, but that is another issue. Whether or not a judge is pro-life or pro-choice is not an issue with me, personally.

[paiger]

give me a break...Nicole's statement:
I will never support a judicial nominee who won't uphold a woman's right to choose.

Does not in any way, shape or form mean:
So, in your opinion, Catholics can't be on the Supreme Court (unless they forsake a major tenent of their faith?)

[Delta]

Amew - Thank you for your response. I do understand what you are saying.

I agree that he isn't under an obligation to state his views on this (though I wish he would, and I have signed the petition), though I disagree that his views aren't pertinent.
Well, his personal views *may* be pertinent to you, but they are not necessarily pertinent to the *law*, you see what I am saying? I do understand your concerns about that, which you mentioned later in your post. But, plenty of pro-life judges have stated that they would not revisit abortion or Roe v. Wade b/c of stare decisis. I disagree with that notion, but I'm not a nominee. ;)

[Quartercentury]

So, in your opinion, Catholics can't be on the Supreme Court (unless they forsake a major tenent of their faith?)
If a Catholic would use his/her position on the Supreme Court to impose tenents of his/her faith on others, then no, that Catholic should not be on the Supreme Court.

[Delta]

ardathpaige - Well, I'll see what Nicole says about it, OK? Because to me, that is what she is saying. :)

[msnicolea]

First of all, there are plenty of pro-choice Catholics, John Kerry for one.
Secondly, religious beliefs aren't the litmus test (for me)--privacy rights are.

So, if a person uses their religious beliefs to deny me the right over my own body, be it abortion, euthanasia, etc. .., then I would not support their nomination. But I don't care if a person practices islam, catholicism, or wiccan(ism)--I just don't think religious doctrine should trump law.

[amew]

Well, his personal views *may* be pertinent to you, but they are not necessarily pertinent to the *law*, you see what I am saying? I do understand your concerns about that, which you mentioned later in your post. But, plenty of pro-life judges have stated that they would not revisit abortion or Roe v. Wade b/c of stare decisis. I disagree with that notion, but I'm not a nominee.

I understand what you are saying. Let me rephrase: Assuming that his personal views would not stand in the way of his ability to consider every case individually and to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis as appropriate, then I would agree that his personal views aren't pertinent. But if his personal views would render him unable to do the above, well, I think that is VERY pertinent. And I am not sure we know which it is until we know a bit more about his personal views.

I'll add that personally I would love for all nominees to be firmly pro-choice. But I am uncomfortable making that an absolute requirement for two reasons. 1) Ideally, we should have a court composed of intelligent jurists who are able to consider the cases with an open mind and respect for the law regardless of their personal views; and 2) I would not want anyone demanding the reverse (i.e., people saying all nominees must be pro-life), so I cannot in good faith demand that all nominees be pro-choice. I do think, however, that being able to consider both sides of an abortion case despite one's personal beliefs should be an absolute requirement of the job. And I think that there are those for whom that would be impossible for religious and/or ethical reasons.

[msnicolea]

I agree with Amew's post--I can't, in good conscience, "demand" it, I'd just "prefer" it!

[Delta]

First of all, there are plenty of pro-choice Catholics, John Kerry for one.
Secondly, religious beliefs aren't the litmus test (for me)--privacy rights are.

So, if a person uses their religious beliefs to deny me the right over my own body, be it abortion, euthanasia, etc. .., then I would not support their nomination. But I don't care if a person practices islam, catholicism, or wiccan(ism)--I just don't think religious doctrine should trump law.

I *completely* agree that religious doctrine should not trump law.

But in regards to your statement about your litmus test -- a major tenent of the Catholic faith is the protection of all life from conception to natural death. If a person is of Catholic faith, and I mean COMPLETE Catholic faith and not pro-choice, then in your eyes they are unqualified. Is that correct? A Catholic who agrees with all the major tenents of his own religion is unfit to be a Justice?

Because, again, I do think it is possible to separate personal beliefs from the actual law.

This reminds me of the concerns at the time about Kennedy and electing an Irish Catholic as President. Many people were worried that Pope, in essence, would be ruling the country.

[Delta]

I do think, however, that being able to consider both sides of an abortion case despite one's personal beliefs should be an absolute requirement of the job.
Of course!

[msnicolea]

I think I understand what you are asking, Delta. I guess it comes down to what I perceive as a jurist's ability to seperate personal belief from law--to be able to put judicial objectivity first and personal beliefs second. So, for me, a Catholic who would only rule in favor of traditionally catholic beliefs would not be fit, because for that person, religion would be trumping the law. I would feel the same way about a radical/ ultra-conservative muslim, or an Orthodox, conservative Jew. I don't care what your religion is--I just ask that the law come first, personal beliefs second. Not sure that's possible, but. . .

[amew]

I guess it comes down to what I perceive as a jurist's ability to seperate personal belief from law--to be able to put judicial objectivity first and personal beliefs second. So, for me, a Catholic who would only rule in favor of traditionally catholic beliefs would not be fit, because for that person, religion would be trumping the law.

I agree. I would NEVER say that Catholics (or Jews, or Protestants, or whatever) are less fit Justices than people of other faiths. But if a Catholic (or Jew, or Protestant, or whatever) cannot allow the law to trump his/her religious beliefs when necessary, then I don't think they should be on the Court.

So what do you all think this says about the Court's current Catholic conservative? Is Scalia unfit to serve?

[msnicolea]

Scalia is unfit for other reasons ;->

[dionysia]

Scalia is unfit for other reasons ;->Ditto that.

Di

[Delta]

Scalia would disagree with Roe v. Wade because he is an originalist. He has already stated he thinks abortion should be decided by the states, and if the people of the individual state agree to it, then so be it. He is against Roe v. Wade but not necessarily because he is pro-life. My view exactly.

[Delta]

http://www.issues2000.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Abortion.htm

There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. 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. 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.

(Rehnquist, joined in part by White, Scalia, and Thomas)
The joint opinion, following its newly minted variation on stare decisis, retains the outer shell of Roe v. Wade, but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case. We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases. We would adopt the approach of the plurality in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), and uphold the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute in their entirety.

[amew]

Scalia would disagree with Roe v. Wade because he is an originalist. He has already stated he thinks abortion should be decided by the states, and if the people of the individual state agree to it, then so be it. He is against Roe v. Wade but not necessarily because he is pro-life.

Is it really because he's an originalist, or because he is a very devout Catholic who feels religiously compelled to do anything in his power to decrease the number if abortions? Given that he is not really in a position to ban abortion outright (that, it seems, would take an act of Congress), leaving it up to the states (which would likely lead to about 30 states banning abortion within a year) is the best he can do.

I believe there have been indications that if Congress were to enact a nationwide ban, he would uphold it. I am not convinced that it is really about federalism with him.

[Delta]

amew - That could be true too, no doubt. And that, I suppose, gets to the heart of the matter in the case of all pro-life justices.

[artist]

I know plenty of pro-choice Catholics, and don't you dare accuse them of not being COMPLETE Catholics.

[Delta]

Artist, I'll PM you.

[lawyerlee]

Artist, I'll PM you.
Or you could start a new thread, if you feel comfortable. I know I'm interested in this topic. :)

[amew]

Or you could start a new thread, if you feel comfortable. I know I'm interested in this topic.

I second. I would be very interested in this discussion.

[Delta]

Or you could start a new thread, if you feel comfortable. I know I'm interested in this topic. :)
Actually, I don't feel comfortable. I have my opinions on the subject of pro-choice Catholicism, but they are just my opinions. (It's basically that I don't understand it.) What really matters is what God thinks, so going into a long discussion that is bound to hurt feelings and possibly spiral out of control is not something I am interested in. Someone else could start it, but I am not going there. (Though I admit I did open the can a little.)

:)

[artist]

Got the PM Delta. Thank you!

[artist]

Must all religion be Right? (from SOJO Mail)

Joe Loconte is on a mission to make sure all religion in America (or at least the political expressions thereof) will be dependably right-wing, like his Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation. Any moderate or, worse, "progressive" religious deviation from the Republican Party line is anathema to Joe, who feels called to stamp out such heresies.



In his recent Wall Street Journal commentary, "From Gospel to Government," published July 1, 2005, Loconte, a Heritage Foundation fellow, derides all such progressive religious groups as having "no obvious grassroots constituency," as being "composed mostly of mainline clergy and church elites who are often culturally out of step with the rank and file," and as people who "treat traditional religion with either suspicion or outright contempt." Wow. That certainly is true for the "secular fundamentalists" who exercise the same undue influence over the Democratic Party as the "religious fundamentalists" do over the Republican Party, but certainly not for orthodox Catholic and evangelical Christians (like me) who simply don't share Loconte's right-wing politics. It's hard to find ourselves in Loconte's diatribes.


He charges that such non-Religious Right heretics "leap directly from the Bible to contemporary politics" without the proper theological and political nuances. Interesting. Wasn't it Religious Right leaders who in a Nashville "Justice Sunday" event said that Christians who don't support all of President Bush's judicial nominees are not really "people of faith?" "Imagine my surprise," said an evangelical seminary professor from Asbury, Kentucky, at an alternative religious service when he realized that despite his biblically orthodox upbringing, he was not really a Christian unless he backed the Republican president's choices for the federal court. In his op-ed, Loconte attacked "religious progressives" for being "allied" with George Soros and MoveOn.Org when I know of no connections to those liberal funders and groups that are as direct as the Religious Right's ties to right-wing funders and think tanks such as Loconte's Heritage Foundation. Perhaps a good test of religious independence would be to examine how critical faith leaders and groups are of their natural political allies. I'd love to compare the religious left and right on that score.


Loconte referenced the "best-selling book God's Politics" that I wrote and accused me of deriving from Isaiah a "blueprint for government welfare spending." On that book tour (in which we spoke to the constituency Loconte claims none of us have), we reached nearly 70,000 people face to face over 21 weeks in 53 cities and reached millions more through the media. What I found was a silent majority of moderate and progressive religious people who don't feel represented by the shrill tones and ideological agenda of the Religious Right, nor the disdainful attitudes toward religion from the secular left. But they do feel that poverty is a moral value and religious issue (there are 3,000 verses on the poor in the Bible), that protecting the environment (otherwise known as God's creation) is also matter of good faith and stewardship, and that the ethics of war - whether we go to war, when we go to war, and whether we tell the truth about going to war - are profoundly religious matters. The people I met don't see federal spending as the only answer to poverty (and neither do I), but they do believe that budgets are moral documents and that all of society is responsible (public, private, and civil society sectors - including faith-based organizations) for working together to overcome poverty.


In a recent National Public Radio commentary, Loconte accused all churches and religious groups who had questions about the war in Iraq of being hopelessly utopian pacifists, and invoked the example of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr's opposition to Hitler as the more realistic path. The problem is that Pope John Paul II, who opposed the war in Iraq, and the current Pope Benedict are not pacifists. Nor are the majority of church bodies around the world who studied the rationales for the war in Iraq (including the majority of evangelical churches worldwide) and concluded it did not fit the traditional just war categories. And Niebuhr, suggest many of his students (including his theologian daughter), would have been quite alarmed at the Bush theology in the war on terrorism, which too easily sees our adversaries as evil and us as good, denying the evil that runs through all human hearts and nation states.



So what's Joe's problem? I think he's worried about what I saw and felt around the country as I met the constituency he hopes doesn't exist. The monologue of the Religious Right is now over, and a new dialogue has just begun on the application of faith and values to politics. Joe wants the Religious Right's monologue to continue and to make sure that no serious dialogue about faith and politics in America gets a chance to really begin. His attacks do, however, serve one useful purpose. He gives credible evidence to the subtitle of God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it.