FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Should the two "Catholic" justices who voted for gay marriage be excommunicated?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(06-27-2015, 06:55 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow I don't think that distinction will make much of a difference when they're before God.

I would like your view on how Catholic judges might adhere to Catholic morality when they decide the cases before them.

The most plausible theory I have heard is that natural law can be incorporated through the Ninth Amendment, which reads: 

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For example:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/fil...065899.pdf
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2709&context=etd_theses

What is your analysis?  How do you reach your conclusion that Catholic judges must decide cases in accordance with Catholic teaching?  How will they be able to accomplish that?  Do you understand that judicial opinions are written to justify decisions on the basis of the secular law?
(06-27-2015, 07:02 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2015, 06:55 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow I don't think that distinction will make much of a difference when they're before God.

I would like your view on how Catholic judges might adhere to Catholic morality when they decide the cases before them.

The most plausible theory I have heard is that natural law can be incorporated through the Ninth Amendment, which reads: 

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For example:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/fil...065899.pdf
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2709&context=etd_theses

What is your analysis?  How do you reach your conclusion that Catholic judges must decide cases in accordance with Catholic teaching?  How will they be able to accomplish that?  Do you understand that judicial opinions are written to justify decisions on the basis of the secular law?

If a person cannot be a faithful Catholic in some job shouldn't the person simply leave the job?
Are you certain that they are unfaithful Catholics?  It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to "say what the law is."  Marbury v. Madison

If the law is as they found, why can't they say it?

By the way, I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with their reasoning.  I am, rather, asking people here to reason to their conclusions and not just make bald assertions.
Well, alright, if their job is simply to say what the law is (the oddity of a constant 5 vs. 4 thing on these hip cases suggesting there's something else informing their readings other than the simple text notwithstanding) then you won't get an argument from me.
I, personally, would feel very dirty participating in an unjust law system all the while pretending neutrality, leaving my Catholic hat at home. But that's just me.
I think that is a fair comment, Renatus.

My immigration law mentor, the late Joseph Vail, quit his job as an immigration judge because he did not want to enforce what he viewed as unjust and overly punitive immigration laws (signed into law in 1996).

This man was a Catholic and one of the finest men I have ever known.
Here is the obituary of my friend, Joseph Vail:  http://www.law.uh.edu/clinic/vail.asp

Requiescat in pace.
(06-27-2015, 07:02 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2015, 06:55 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow I don't think that distinction will make much of a difference when they're before God.
I would like your view on how Catholic judges might adhere to Catholic morality when they decide the cases before them.

There's very much a rational basis for distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual couples when it comes to marriage - heterosexual marriages can produce children, and it's better for children to be raised by a mother and a father. That's how a Catholic judge should have decided this without having to resort to "because God says so".

There's also a difference between a Catholic judge in a state where the legislature has allowed gay "marriage", and that judge is called upon to, for example, decide who gets the property when one of them dies without a will, or saying that one of them isn't allowed to testify against the other because the state considers them married. But what happened yesterday isn't that - it was several Catholic justices agreeing that the state has to allow gay "marriage" because there's no difference between men and women, which is false, and in no way required by the law. They made it up yesterday because it's their opinion that gay "marriage" should be legal. It ignores that the primary purpose of marriage is children - not love - and you don't have to be religious to see that having children is how a society continues.
Paul, that is a good, careful analysis.  Thanks.
I am wondering why christians in this nation do not sue the federales for several things, not the least of which is abortion. An obvious sacrament of the devil and satanists which the government condones thus aiding demon worshippers an obvious breach of separation of church and state. :(
I think you need to listen to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's thoughts on his job. I suggest to watch the whole thing to get a better view on the process of what goes on in the mind of a justice sitting on the Supreme Court.

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.p...=3468477.0
Pages: 1 2 3