Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Reflections of a Supreme-to-Be

So the Bushies still got their Catholic justice, after all... Friends of the Robertses tell the NYTimes that the Justice-designate and his wife are, indeed, "devout." (But are they Scalia-devout?) Given the lack of paper trail, should make for interesting confirmation hearings.

I really hope that the "Catholic" pressure groups out there don't lift up their leg on the hydrant down the line by screaming about canonical sanctions for judges they don't like -- they tried to do this with the San Francisco judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage. It's one thing to bring this up in a legislative context, but the judiciary is a whole new ballgame, and to inhibit or threaten it is not the best thing for a free society... We saw this earlier in the year in Chicago.

Extant the court, it seems a slow news day. What the hell am I to talk about? Should we do a Rohrshach Test-style Q&A session or something?

Whatever the case, good morning.



Blogger Jeff said...

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.

Supposed the law, or a binding interpretation of it from some duly constituted court, mandated that every American over the age of seventy be "humanely" put to death.

What should a Catholic judge do? Should he a) distort the law or decision in order to produce a result that harmonizes with his Catholic conscience? Or b) faithfully and honestly apply the law of the land, regardless of what he believes?

Most of the judges people want to sanction choose (b), claiming quite rightly that they can't lie and pretend that the law says something that it doesn't just to suit them. Some, of course, really may not HAVE a Catholic conscience at all.

But the honest and honorable Catholic judge--why does this need saying?--can't participate in mass murder of people based on their ages, no matter WHAT the law says. He must choose alternative c): RESIGN.

For the (b) judges? Sanction away!

20/7/05 15:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home