Kerry, a Catholic legislator who was running for president, was condemned by some in the Catholic Church for his statement to the effect that he personally opposed abortion, but that he respected others’ right to choose on the matter.
Roberts, a Catholic judge, has stated that he views Roe as settled law, but has indicated elsewhere that he personally opposes abortion.
If Roberts doesn’t come out and state that he will do everything within his power to have abortion abolished, shouldn’t he be condemned by the one’s who opposed Kerry?
**Roberts, a Catholic judge, has stated that he views Roe as settled law, but has indicated elsewhere that he personally opposes abortion. **
He stated that, I believe, while a candidate for the federal court system. In that context, he’s correct, it’s settled law. Things potentially get a little different if you’re on the SC.
If Roberts doesn’t come out and state that he will do everything within his power to have abortion abolished, shouldn’t he be condemned by the one’s who opposed Kerry?
Help me out here Vitus
It isn’t difficult. As a Catholic SC justice, it wouldn’t be up to Roberts to “do everything in his power” to abolish abortion. It’s would be up to him to interpret the law as written.
He stated that, I believe, while a candidate for the federal court system. In that context, he’s correct, it’s settled law. Things potentially get a little different if you’re on the SC.
You know, that’s a really good point. You dont see candidates for a federal court talking about overturning a Supreme Court decision. On the Supreme Court he’d still have the principle of stare decisis but if he really felt a case was wrongly decided…
To say some issue is “settled” or decided law is simply a statement of fact. As a general rule, once a precedent has been set, it stands even if new or different judges might interpret the case differently. However, there are many, many examples of settled or decided law being overruled later (e.g., Dred Scott). But generally, some new evidence or argument that wasn’t presented originally would have to be considered. It is incumbent upon the petitioner (and not easy) to show the court that a new argument could win the case.
So, I don’t think that for Roberts to say Roe is “settled law” doesn’t necessarily mean he believes it was settled in the right way, or that given new evidence or facts, it might not be settled differently. This is the point the Dems wil try to nail him down on.
OTOH, Kerry has pretty consistently been closed-minded to ANY argument that might restrict or limit abortion in any way–and he will probably vote against confirmatiopn of Roberts if he even hints that there is an iota of a chance that he might be open to relooking at Roe in any way, shape or form.
So–I don’t think you can necessarily draw a parrallel between Robert’s statement and Kerry’s positions.
I agree with the point you and Vitus make regarding an appellate level judge applying SCt precedent. It will be interesting to see what he does when the opportunity arises for a “fresh look” when he’s on the SCt.
To me, as an admitted cafeteria Catholic, it will be more interesting to see what the Catholic Church does if he and Scalia come out differently on a Roe challenge. (Scalia is Catholic, right?) My level of skepticism with the Church rose upon seeing how far it chose to insert itself into the politics of the last election. If the Church were to condemn a Catholic SCt justice for coming out on the wrong side of a Roe challenge, some of my suspicions would be further confirmed. But hey, I only have 9 more years of raising my son as a Catholic, then I can walk if I choose!
I suspect that the Church (American version) has inserted itself too far into politics for me to continue to support the Church. My faith in core Catholic teachings has not faded, but my willingness to support for the Church, and in particular the Archbishop of the St. Louis Archdiocese, is fading.
Guilty conscience speaking? Cuz I didn’t see that anywhere in the article you linked to. The article, in fact, is nothing that every Catholic shouldn’t already have known. There’s nothing controversial in it.
Fair enough - it may not be controversial, but it was certainly new to me. Up until this past election, I wasn’t aware that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and euthanasia overruled the issues of war, poverty, death penalty, social justice, global solidarity and any other areas of concern to Catholics. I guess those are just trivial matters of secondary concern.
Up until this past election, I wasn’t aware that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and euthanasia overruled the issues of war, poverty, death penalty, social justice, global solidarity and any other areas of concern to Catholics.
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole article youself- it addressed that particular objection quite nicely.
