Alito Sides With Missouri Inmate on Death-Row

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:33 PM']It looks like Chief Justice Roberts is going to fit that mold too....however, we don't know what his ruling on abortion is yet......time will tell.

However, I am VERY encouraged by the view of Justice Alito thus far.  1 day and he is following his prudential judgment (conscience) quite well.
[right][snapback]873229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I thought Roberts was pro-life...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:27 PM']The interpretation of a judge has nothing to do with his own views. Yes, there is difference in interpretation, but this is a difference in how we view the law in light of the Constitution, not in light of our own personal beliefs.

I may think abortion should be outlawed. But that doesn't mean the US government does. As a judge, my role is to decide what the US government thinks, what the law says. If the law says abortion is allowed, then I have to rule that abortion is allowed. It's not about what I think of abortion. It's about what the law says.

If I want to outlaw abortion, I would become a legislator, and change the law.
[right][snapback]873311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, the US government thought abortion should be outlawed and had/has a few laws against it.

The Supreme Court thinks that it should be allowed and has shot down all those laws as un-Constitutional.

These two must read the Constitution in light of Natural Law.

All the justices must...Roberts and Alito just have the extra bonus of Divine Law backing up the Natural Law.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 2 2006, 07:29 PM']Actually, the US government thought abortion should be outlawed and had/has a few laws against it.

The Supreme Court thinks that it should be allowed and has shot down all those laws as un-Constitutional.

These two must read the Constitution in light of Natural Law.

All the justices must...Roberts and Alito just have the extra bonus of Divine Law backing up the Natural Law.
[right][snapback]873567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That may be the case. And if it is, I hope they are able to bring it to light.

But to say that they must read the Constitution "in light of natural law" is to bring a personal conception of what the law SHOULD be into the equation. Of course, from a Catholic perspective, all law is grounded in natural and moral law. But a judge for the United States does not represent Catholicism or even reason; he represents the United States, which may or may not be reasonable. The law may be unreasonable, from a personal perspective, but a judge swears to uphold it if, in fact, it is the law. If he wants to change the law, so as to bring it into conformity with natural and moral law, then he should be a legislator, not a judge.

As I said, if this precludes a Catholic from serving as judge, then we will have to accept that. I'm not sure that it does, but that's a whole other discussion.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

I do believe that the Constitution was founded on the precepts of the Natural Law.

Meaning any interpretation of said law following in history cannot contradict Natural Law.

Ergo, they should be intepreting the Constitution in that light.

[Era Might]

Ok, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with your faith as a Catholic. A pagan could believe that the Constitution was written with natural law in mind. As I said, if a judge is doing his job, it's not about his own views, it's about what the law says.

So to go back to my original point, it doesn't matter to me that Alito and Roberts are Christian. The real question is what is their view of American law, and are they committed to put aside their own personal agenda, and truly rule for what the law is, and not what they would like it to be.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 06:50 PM']Ok, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with your faith as a Catholic. A pagan could believe that the Constitution was written with natural law in mind. As I said, if a judge is doing his job, it's not about his own views, it's about what the law says.

So to go back to my original point, it doesn't matter to me that Alito and Roberts are Christian. The real question is what is their view of American law, and are they committed to put aside their own personal agenda, and truly rule for what the law is, and not what they would like it to be.
[right][snapback]873611[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

With respect to what you were originally responding, I agree.

As regards in general, I think that their own interpretations/knowledge may be necessary in some cases.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Interpretation can mean many things. It's not as simple as monk makes it out. He's ultimately right, but to suggest you don't know what interpretation means adds nothing to the issue except vagueness and continued debate. If the law were in no way gray, one could make the argument that the judges have only one way of ruling.
Your argument would then be right. The error you made isn't so much that you don't know what interpretation means, it's that you don't understand:

In the law are a lot of grayness and inherent uncertainties, where you cannot determine what was meant. Think of the constitution. It says generalities such as "protect people". Now, law is by no means standard in how to interpret it. Some say as Era did that we should interpret it as the US government thinks it should be. I think most interpret it the way the founders thought it was. If this is the case, then you ask yourself what they thought. Really, who can know in a lot of cases? This gives wiggle room for judges to insert their values.

(what monk's type of comments come down to is either him not being able to express himself, or him assuming you already know these things, which we're all guilty of, but both of which he'd never admit)

In the case of abortion, if one thinks the baby is a baby, they will interpret the Constitution such that they protect the baby. If they don't, they won't.

Edit: more food for thought. Even if the federal government passes a law, judges traditionally have had the right to call it unconstitutional. The only thing the government could then do is change the constitution, which is much harder to do. Point being, it's not per se what the US government wants, in sense yes, in sense no.

Edited February 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

........
nm

Edited February 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:39 PM']There is nothing wrong with the death penalty. What is wrong is that it is applied to cases that it shouldn't be. Such as this one.

We need the death penalty for rare instances where it will be needed to protect society... the prime example is if we catch Bin Laden.

Also, it is not that this guy was going to die, but it was the method that he was going to die with is the issue. Lethal injection is cruel... the first injection paralyzes, the second crushes your internal organs, the third is the barbituate. If they are going to use lethal injection, they should do it painlessly like they do animals.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]873243[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i didn't know that about the injections. is it like that all over?

wow, how hard would it be to knock them out first? geez.

[Winchester]

Rejection of the death penalty is not an article of faith. Rejection of the death penalty is not an official church stance. Even JPII never utterly rejected it.