Thursday, March 31, 2005
She is a martyr, a martyr to the killing machine of the modern state. A martyr to the "death with dignity" crowd, though her death was anything but dignified-- a horrific torment of starvation and thirst that had to be hidden by morphine injections. A martyr to a society unmoved by the sight of a man who seeks his wife's blood in court while he commits adultery with a new victim, er, woman. A martyr especially to a judicial system gone amok, which will extend absurd procedural protections to confessed murderers, but which dispatched this gentle woman without the intervention Congress clearly intended.
The "least dangerous branch" has struck again. It is already responsible for the killing of millions of unborn citizens. It has prevented states from protecting their citizens' moral welfare, "legalizing" sodomy and in some cases has attacked the sanctity of the family by mandating homosexual "marriage." And now a state court with the connivance of the federal district and appellate courts, has killed an utterly innocent woman, a victim of her devious, cheating, lying husband and his immoral, degenerate, death-worshipping lawyer George Felos. One wonders if now they are paying homage at the temple of their god, Quetzalcoatl, having shed innocent blood to his name, not to keep the sun on its path as the Aztecs believed, but so Michael Schiavo could be rid of the burden of his wife.
Jefferson's famed tree of liberty is parched, as parched as Terri Schiavo's dying body. It needs to be watered.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Compared with contemporary, homogenized, EU-ized Spain, with its easy divorce and abortion laws, Franco's Spain looks better all the time.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Sometimes it's hard to stick to the facts and equities and not just slam these idiots for their game-playing. #1 and #2, who were hoping for leniency in a state court, will now likely be hooked up federally. They (and their people in the gallery) probably won't be smirking then. #3 will hopefully do the right thing tommorrow. And the game continues....
Friday, March 25, 2005
At any rate, hopefully he will be sparing with broadcasting my foul-ups, and I for my part will try not to keep reminding him all the time that prosecutors, NOT the pontificating defense bar, are the only players in this game whose sole job is to see that justice is done!
Thursday, March 24, 2005
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." --Chesterton
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Could this be one small gem buried in the stinking dung heap of this ghoulish case?
the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted....(emphasis added)
do these courts NOT understand?
Monday, March 21, 2005
Now that these feats have been accomplished, our good shepherds can finally takcle that ancient moral evil, capital punishment.
The argument that our country needs a “natural Law Jurisprudence” as Mr. Fournier termed it, is enticing to a Catholic. There is no question that our legal institutions should reflect, as a baseline, the dictates of the Natural Law as understood in the West for several millennia and as explicated and confirmed by the wisdom of the Church.
The difficulty arises in our Constitutional system as to where to locate that function of implementing the Natural Law. Congress is our lawmaker. They are solely responsible for drafting and enacting legislation. The Supreme Court’s mandate is not to make law, but only to decide whether laws which have been enacted are in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution.
Perhaps unlike in some other legal systems, American judges are essentially technicians, not philosophers, and imposing on them the responsibility to discern the Natural Law is like asking your local parish priest to conduct open-heart surgery. It is not an insult to the priest to recognize that surgery is not his line of work. Judges are good at applying the law to a set of facts in a case, or in putting a piece of legislation next to the Constitution and seeing if they conflict. They are not trained in law school to plumb the depths of the Natural Law; worse, life-appointed Justices are not accountable to anyone if their view of Natural Law turns out to be erroneous. It is therefore a dangerous idea to vest the safety of our institutions and traditions in the hands of lawyers who are not qualified academically or by temperment to be philosophers.
As long ago as 1947, before the culture wars stated, a Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black, explained that a Natural Law approach would "appropriate for this Court a broad power which we are not authorized by the Constitution to exercise." (Adamson v. California).
Note that none of this is to say that Natural Law does not have a role in our legal system. It is only to suggest that judges are not the proper repositories of the myriad practical determinations as to what laws are consonant with Natural Law. It is understandable that one might like some of the philosophically based, non-Constitutional rulings of the Supreme Court (like Mr. Fournier apparently does). But it should be remembered that once we admit the principle that the Supreme Court can impose its particular view (or more correctly, the view of five prevailing Justices) as “law,” we should not complain when they discern a hitherto unknown “right of privacy” in the Constitution which negates the states’ laws against abortion and contraception (Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut). Or when they determine that the interest in self-determination and privacy means that sodomy laws are unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas). Or when they decide in the near future, as it seems they might, that fundamental fairness and equality under the law require that states not prevent homosexuals from “marrying.”
The decision to prevent states from justly executing juveniles stems likewise from just such judicial inventiveness. No genuinely principled legal, Constitutional argument can be made that such laws are unconstitutional. The Court is simply imposing the personal philosophical views of the prevailing Justices upon the will of the citizens of the states. They are in short doing just what Mr. Fournier is advocating. He cannot decry Roe and praise Roper. They are cut of the same cloth and result from the same lawless disregarding of the Court’s traditionally limited role in our system.
The question for any person dedicated to the Natural Law, then, is how do we best advance just laws? As the examples cited above (abortion, contraception, sodomy, marriage, capital punishment) show, the people usually do support and enact just laws. It is the Court which overturns these just laws. Our experience has thus been that the people and their representatives are a surer custodian of Natural Law principles.
So we should reject Mr. Fournier’s call for a generation of Catholic jurists armed to discern the Natural Law and enforce it from the bench. Such judges would actually be violating their oaths and undermining our legitimate institutions by usurping functions assigned by our system elsewhere than the courts. It is comparable to urging police officers not just to enforce the laws as written, but to seek out and punish any wrongdoing they find, whether the conduct is legal or not. It might sound nice (to some) but it is a recipe for lawlessness cloaked with a veneer of righteousness. The Natural Law must be advanced, but not every public official must advance it if his job does not permit him to do so.
This is beneficial, since from a Catholic perspective, it is relatively easy to influence our state and national laws through the (admittedly flawed) mechanisms of representative democracy. It is extremely difficult, however, to change radical Supreme Court decisions—to amend the Constitution or to wait for death and sympathetic presidents to appoint Justices who might (or might not) right the prior wrongs of their predecessors.
In sum, in accordance with the well-known Catholic principle of subsidiarity, our system is designed to keep such important issues close to the people. This is accomplished by vesting the legislative power solely in elected representatives. It is there we must work to advance the Natural Law, not in hoping for enlightened lawyers on the Supreme Court.
This blog will be devoted to exploring the crisis in the Catholic Church, the destruction of Western Civilization, and the airing of my gripes about my professional field, criminal justice, viewed from my lofty perch as a local prosecutor in the trenches. I make no apologies for my visceral traditionalism nor for my heroes, such as (in random order) Chesterton, Salazar, Scalia,
I hope to make the ride enjoyable.