It’s all the Pope’s fault
ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg takes Rosie O’Donnell and former law school dean and provost at the University of Chicago Geoffrey Stone to task for their anti-catholic bias and shoddy reasoning regarding the Supreme Court’s partial-birth abortion decision.
3 Comments
Post a comment
What these critics are really doing is a type of ad hominem attack. They don't attack the justices' reasoning, but their faith.
But one thing is interesting – the Catholics are voting "more biblical" than the backslidden CHINO protestants on the court. Catholics should be proud of these justices for not giving in to the spirit of the age.
What these critics are really doing is a type of ad hominem attack. They don't attack the justices' reasoning, but their faith.
I think that general analysis is correct, but is only natural with the move to appoint Conservative justices with a predefined notion of a litmus test in their appointment rather than strike a balance between Liberal and Conservative appointments to the court. The natural line of attack rather than finding flaws with the ruling or the judge's judicial ideology is the use of these types of tactics.
Catholics should be proud of these justices for not giving in to the spirit of the age.
I am a Catholic and I am not proud of the Justices on the Supreme Court at all. Even if I agree with each and every ruling that came down, I would not be proud. Nor should I be.
By the very nature of the Judicial System, Judges are supposed to be non-partisan and non-political when it comes to interpreting and ruling on matters of law (despite evidence to the contrary with the whole US Attorney's fiasco).
I think you are overreaching here.
However, you are right that Catholics are in fact more Biblical than CHINO protestants and in many cases are more confined to doctrine than Evangelicals (e.g., opposed to the use of contraceptives). That does not necessarily translate into a voting blocks within the Judiciary or the general populace.
- S
Silver, I'm not sure what you believe a president should do, appoint judges that disagree with him to achieve some obscure principle of "balance?"
I really don't know how you expect judges to be truly nonpartisan either. I was watching this interesting documentary on PBS about the Supreme Court. It was obvious from the beginning that the people who made up the court let personal and political influences guide (or sway, depending on your perspective) them in their decisions.
If an individual holds to a conservative philosophy then that is going to color how they view cases and application of the Constitution. The same goes for liberal. Even the view of the Constitution – being static or living – is a huge factor on how someone will rule.
I'm also not sure what the US Attorney's issues has to do with Supreme Court judges being non-partisan and how this current situation is a fiasco when hiring/firing attorneys has always been at the whim of the president.