Saints preserve us, the heathen Prods have found us out! But we shouldn’t get over-excited; it’s probably too late for them to stop us.
You probably saw the enormous headline on page A4 of the paper today, "Alito would bring Catholic majority." He would join John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Or
maybe you didn’t, benighted, ill-read heathen that you are. If you didn’t, never mind. Go back to your reality TV.
But for those who keep up with such things, what this means is that, if Samuel Alito is confirmed, the court would consist of five Catholics, two Jews and two Protestants.
Which sounds about right to me, so I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Or maybe I do. Maybe, just maybe, those "experts" quoted in the story, who said things such as "Catholicism is a wide tent in terms of political and legal positions," don’t know what they’re on about.
I love the way the secular press (which is loaded with lapsed Catholics, by the way) is always citing statistics that show that everyday Catholics don’t really believe all that stuff that the hierarchy tries to stuff our heads with. This story, from Knight Ridder’s Washington Bureau, was no exception. Note the following:
For example, only 20 percent of active Catholics who attend church
weekly said abortion is morally acceptable. But that percentage rose to
34 percent among those who attend nearly every week or monthly and to
54 percent among lapsed Catholics who rarely attend church.
Boy, I guess it’s all over for the teaching authority of the Church, huh? Imagine that — a slight majority of people who have turned their backs on the church don’t agree with an important Catholic belief. Will wonders never cease?
That’s all right. Once we get our majority on the court, it won’t take us long to get the Inquisition started back, and we’ll soon sort out those backsliders.
But seriously, folks … the more important thing to consider here is that, as near as I can tell, Samuel Alito is a man of considerable integrity, and he said he believes fervently in the rule of law. So do I. I also believe in playing by the rules, and in not forcing my beliefs upon others. That’s why you haven’t seen any anti-abortion editorials in The State. I don’t have a consensus for that position on my board, and that’s that. (What I write in my columns and on my blog are another matter, of course.)
However … it just so happens that in addition to believing that abortion is morally wrong (something I believed before I was Catholic, by the way), I believe Roe v. Wade is very bad law. There simply is no such thing as a constitutional right to privacy, Griswold or no Griswold.
Frankly, I’m quite proud of Mr. Alito that he made it through his hearings without using the code phrase "settled law." He said he respects precedent, as do I. But I don’t worship it. I have but one God.
And thanks be to God, the Supreme Court doesn’t worship it, either. If it did, we would still be ruled by Plessy v. Ferguson, which was "settled law" for 58 years.
Related Posts
Don’t let people know about our papist plot. As soon a Judge Alito is sworn in we activate Justice Kennedy who is a faithful Catholic who has been working undercover for years.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Brad, the above excerpt from the 4th Amendment is a dictionary-caliber definition of privacy if you take off the “shall not be violated.” I don’t know that A#4 was evoked in the Roe/Griswold decisions, but I differ with you when you say, “There simply is no such thing as a constitutional right to privacy.”
If you were being tongue in cheek, I couldn’t readily tell. Good point about Plessy — Dred Scott is another good example.
The key word there is “unreasonable,” RS. That’s why we’re all still arguing about it. That’s a subjective word; there’s nothing clear-cut about it. What’s reasonable to me isn’t necessarily so to you. See the problem?
Warthen’s phrasing is interesting. He declares Alito to be a man of “considerable” integrity. I guess that he means that Alito’s integrity is comparable to Warthen’s – they both exhibit integrity when it is convenient to do so, but don’t take it too far. For example, Alito takes whatever positions he needs to take in order to secure a job that he wants, and Warthen ignores any facts that would undermine arguments he wants to make.
I would prefer that a Supreme Court Justice exhibit unquestioned, or impeccable integrity, rather than “considerable” integrity, but I guess that would pretty much disqualify anyone who would be acceptable to a dishonest racist such as Warthen.
I would like to have heard Alito explain why, in the 1970’s, he joined an organization whose sole reason for being was to agitate for the exclusion of qualified women and African American candidates for admission to Princeton, in favor of less qualified white candidates. I’m not interested in hearing conclusory and self-serving statements that Alito isn’t a closet bigot, especially those extracted by a person who was supposed to sit in judgment of Alito but was at the same time unethically coaching him on what to say.
Alito committed acts characteristic of a bigot. If he’s not a bigot, what is his explanation for advocating policies that favored less qualified white male applicants over more qualified women and African American applicants?
One might just as well say, I joined the Ku Klux Klan and bragged about my membership when I was seeking a job among people who held similar views, but I’m not a bigot.
Warthen’s declaration that Alito has “integrity” is interesting, but not persuasive, given his own lack of integrity that has led to his failure as a journalist and as a human being.
While watching Ted Kennedy in particular during the Alito hearings, the phrase “Ugly American” came to mind. Conservative leaning jurists have learned from the Bork episode to stay away from the leftist’s baiting them into an argument. Once in the argument, the (leftist) mainstream media then piles on the conservative justice. So we had the spectacle of Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer attempting to harass the nominee while only making fools of themselves. I was proud of Sen. Graham for telling it like it is.
I am old enough to recall when JFK (the genuine one) ran for office and their was an undercurrent if not explicit set of thinking about how he may be loyal to Rome instead of the US Constitution. In retrospect, we know that was silly. The country has come a long way. Catholics were banned from attending Harvard for a long time for example. As a Catholic in SC, almost every year, on Ash Wednesday, I find a friendly soul who tells me I have some dirt on my forehead. That is always comical to me and the good samaritan after I explain it.
Regarding privacy, the left is very selective about which and who’s privacy they are concerned about. When Justice Thomas was a candidate, they were openly snooping into the books he checked out and video rentals that he made. At the time, they said the ends justify the means. When CJ Roberts was a candidate, the NY Times tried to find out how the Roberts’s had adopted two children from Brazil (I think). So much for privacy respect on the left.
Perhaps with Alito on the court, we will see the Ten Commandments re-displayed in our schools and public places. After all, it is prominently displayed at the USSC. As I have posted before (maybe several times), life is good in America and we all have a lot to look forward to in the ongoing improvement of this nation.
Dave, so why is it that Alito joined an organization whose sole reason for existence was to advocate favoring of less qualified white males over more qualified women and African Americans? Please enlighten us.
Mary, Not sure if you followed the hearings closely, but Alito only joined the CAP group because back then the numskulls running Princeton were thinking of banning ROTC. He was an ROTC participant. Alito had nothing to do with any other agenda CAP was eventually espousing. Give the guy a break will you? Funny, Teddy Boy K. was a member of an all male organization at Harvard. Who cares really. If you hang your hat on CAP that is really weak.
As for the KKK, what are your thoughts on Sen. Byrd at one time being the Grand Kleagle?
Dave, I know that Alito claimed that he joined the organization he doesn’t remember joining or being a member of because of his support for ROTC. That just proves he’s a liar, because you don’t remember the reason you joined an organization you don’t remember joining. It doesn’t prove he didn’t support the real goal of the group, which was to support favoring the admission of less qualified white male applicants over more qualified women and African American applicants.
Now, you gloss over Alito’s membership in a racist and sexist organization, yet you think that you have scored heavily by pointing out that various people you don’t like have been members, in one case, of a single gender organization, and in another case, of a racist organization of the type that you would no doubt have joined if you had lived in a time when it was more fashionable. I want to know three things, though:
1. Did the single gender organization of which Senator Kennedy was a member promote racist and sexist policies, as did the organization of which Alito was a member?
2. If you asked Byrd if he had been a member of the Klan, would he admit to it like a man, and admit that he had been wrong to join it, or would he lie like Alito, pretending that he didn’t remember anything about joining it?
3. If it is OK to condemn Kennedy and Byrd for their past memberships, why isn’t it appropriate to condemn Alito for both being a member and capitalizing on his membership in the past, and lying about it now? Or are you just a hypocrite who makes excuses for people you support and condemns the same or similar (or in the case of Kennedy, radically different) behavior in others?
I’d have to guess hypocrite; why else would you have time to engage in this sort of discussion at all? If you weren’t a hypocrite, wouldn’t you be over in Iraq?
Mary, If I were up for nomination for a federal judgeship, I would have to admit that I have been to the Masters golf tournament several times, and enjoyed it too. According to people like you, since the Masters doesn’t have women members, I guess that would make me ineligible for office. That is about as much involvement that Alito had with CAP. Judge Roberts actually used the word “Amigo” 25 years ago and Chuckie “Knucklehead” Schumer actually tried to hang his hat on that one. You fit right in with Teddy and Chuckie.
On Iraq, that really is a sore point for you isnt it? Now the Iraqi people are turning against your beloved heroes, Al Qaeda, and we are exterminating them as they are identified. I served in the US Army which is way more than you have ever done I am certain.
Dave, you once again exemplify the failure of the South Carolina educational system that has rendered you so ignorant and incapable of reasoning that you have to depend for your survival on federal handouts extracted from the taxes of people like me. Having or not having women members isn’t the issue. The issue isn’t that CAP didn’t have women members. The issue is that CAP promoted a racist and sexist agenda, promoting the exclusion of more qualified women and African American applicants to Princeton over less qualified white male applicants.
The Ku Klux Klan isn’t objectionable simply because of (or even primarily because of) its all-white membership. The Ku Klux Klan is objectionable because they promote an agenda of racism and hatred. Your argument would be just as applicable to the KKK as it is to the CAP, and it would be just as invalid.
You also prove your ignorance and stupidity (and that you are a worthless piece of garbage) when you accuse me of holding al Qaeda as heroes. I have to admit that I resent such accusations, coming as they do from someone who wouldn’t be able to afford to eat if it weren’t for the handouts I help to finance. Where’s your gratitude?
Anyway, I guess that since you have no argument, the next best thing is to try to foreclose the arguments of others. Reality has shown that the Iraq war is a misbegotten adventure, and accusing loyal Americans of being al Qaeda supporters helps you to avoid admitting that. The fact is, though, that you have provided al Qaeda (although intentionally) with as much aid and comfort as they have received from anyone in this country. The Iraq war has strengthened al Qaeda, and the diversion of U.S. forces into Iraq has given the Taliban and al Qaeda fresh opportunities in Afghanistan.
If you really opposed al Qaeda, and had enough learning and intelligence to understnad which policies would really weaken them, you would advocate withdrawing from Iraq in as expedient a manner as possible in order to allow us to marshal our military strength against a genuine threat.
Mary, I have no idea how much taxes you pay but I can tell you I pay quite a bit in taxes. Be that as it may, I admit its a nice problem to have. I don’t know how you earn your living but if you are as negative in a job setting as you are on this blog, well, my prayers go out to those who work with and around you. My guess is my taxes are financing your shrewish existence in some way or another. But that is life, and 24 is on, a show I bet you never miss.
As for withdrawing troops from Iraq, I am for that fairly soon to free up our troops for Iran. They are Axis of Evil, Part II. Get ready for that!!!!!!!! It’s coming.
Oh, I don’t doubt that you pay taxes, but the point is that they aren’t sufficient to pay for the services and handouts you receive from the federal government. Those subsidies and handouts have to be paid by taxes received from people like me. A bum who receives a subsidized meal is taking charity, even if he pays an amount for the meal that is less than its cost. The difference between you and the bum is that the bum is likely to acknowledge that the subidized cost of the meal represents a charitable gift to him, and is grateful for it. You talk about your token taxes subidizing me; how is that possible when you receive $1.35 in federal services and handouts for every $1.00 you pay in federal taxes? How could your negative contribution to the federal treasury possibly subidize anyone?
And why isn’t it “negative” for you to accuse people who disagree with you of being adherents to al Qaeda, but “negative” and therefore unacceptable for me to point out that you are a liar, a freeloader, and a hypocrite? Why don’t you hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others?
If we invade Iran, will you then:
(a) roust yourself off your sofa and make a positive contribution to the war effort?
Or will you:
(b) continue to content yourself with impugning the patriotism of those who question the wisdom of rushing into another losing battle?
If I had to guess, I’d guess (a).
Mary, Enlighten me as to what state you live in? You are hung up on SC receiving more tax dollars than it pays in. Are you against providing federal “charity” to poor people in SC? After all, the people in New England, who by the way are statistically the most miserly people in America, make nearly the highest per capita wages in the USA. Interesting that these are the “blue” states that go Dem each election. Is that where you live now? Fess up.
As for Iran, you are right, I will do “a”, thank you. I will roust myself off my couch and support the continuing war on terrorism. It is apparent from your postings that you would surrender immediately to Al Qaeda. You talking about marshaling our military strength is truly funny. You know you would disarm our military and have them fight with spitballs, way to tell it Zell Miller.
Wow, you’re going to join the military and go over and fight? Congratulations! You have my undying gratitude.
Unless by “support the war on terrorism” you mean “continue to sit at home collecting handouts.”
What I object to is not providing charity to people like you, who are unable to support themselves without relying on handouts. What I object to is the total lack of gratitude you exhibit. I resent the fact that shiftless freeloaders like you strut around preaching the value of self reliance without actually practicing it. I realize that you can’t make it without handouts. But why do you have to pretend that you’re better than the people whose charity you depend on for your survival?
As for the study supposedly painting people in New England as the most miserly people in America, it’s interesting that it evaluated who was more generous and who was less generous by relative rankings, not by actual amount or percentage of income contributed. We don’t know how far apart #1 was from #50, do we? If you want to portray people in New England as miserly, start by telling us how much they actually donate to charity compared to people in South Carolina, not that they fall below South Carolina in some ranking scheme.
Anyway, how generous are the people from the conservative states, anyway. It’s not really their money they’re giving away, is it; it’s money they’ve received in handouts from people in New England. Why not figure out how much you’ve received in federal handouts above what you paid in federal taxes, and pick out some random family in New England and send it to them? Then see how much you contribute to charity out of your own earnings, as opposed to your own earnings combined with the handouts extracted from the family in New England.
Or will you be doing that right after you sign up for the military?
And again you show your hypocrisy by saying that I would surrender to al Qaeda. You think it’s OK to attack people like me, but let anyone point out that you are a shiftless, hypocritical freeloader, and you have to grab for your smelling salts because of your shock at how “negative” liberals are.
Again, it is you and others like you who (admittedly unintentionally, as a result of ignorance, not malice) who are giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda by supporting Bush’s misbegotten adventure in Iraq.
The papist plot is real. Once the Romanists take over the court they will rule that all must keep the Sunday observance over the true Saturday Sabbath. The separation of church and state will be eradicated and the papal antichrist will try to take over America. It has already started with voucher programs to the papist schools. The saints of God will suffer much and the end-times are upon us.
You can joke about this, but the threat is real. Our freedoms will be stripped from us and we let it happen.
Mary, here is a list of positive, not negative, thoughts by me. If you are not the doom and gloomer we know you are, let’s see your list.
US Economy growing
Unemployment way down
Housing steady and strong
Stock market up
No domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11
50 million newly converted people of liberty in the mideast
Al Qaeda in disarray and many exterminated
Libya renounced WMD
Elections in Egypt
Syrians removed from Jordan
I could go on but let’s see your list of what you are thankful for in a positive sense. And, by the way, Pres. Bush does not deserve ALL the credit for the above list but he deserves a good share of it.
You know a more accurate way to have written The State article would have been to that Clarence Thomas is an Episcopalean – he merely attended a Catholic school as a lad, but that would have required actual research, using things like “Google.com”.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/Clarence_Thomas.html
Google is a very fine tool for the general public. I have access to some better research tools, but I often employ Google myself, particularly to find links. It’s quite useful for that, although unfortunately many of my sources are no longer freely available on the Web. But in this case, if you had looked a little more carefully at Google alone, you would have found that you were seriously out of date. Justice Thomas returned to the church in 1996. Here’s a 1998 reference to it that is still available, but unfortunately stories from the time are generally hard to link to now. Here’s the beginning of a USA Today story from June 18, 1996:
OR, you could have just read to the third paragraph of your own link, which would have told you:
Here’s hoping you find all this enlightening…
The ignorant rant about Alito belonging to CAP continues. The writings quoted by Ted Kennedy brought forth the author, a famous author now, who is also of very dark complexion. He laughed about how his article, which Judge Alito never even saw, was written as SATIRE!
Very few media outlets had the honesty to report that their latest outrage was a tempest in a teapot, a figment of their ignorant imaginations.
“Justice Thomas returned to the church in 1996.”
Brad, I would have felt better if you had capitalized “church” in that context. I’m not sure what the grammatical rule is there, but I don’t like the insinuation that the Catholic church is the only true one. Which is probably not what you meant (or is it?), after Vatican II, but it almost sounds like it.
Don’t you like it when people pick over every word you write?
The GOP does not have a viable Catholic candidate for the 08 Prez. election. I guess that ends the papist conspiracy. George Allen – Presbyterian, McCain – Episcopal, Condi Rice – Evangelical Presby.
But wait a minute, Condi went to a Catholic high school in Denver, CO. Ah haaaaaaaaa, we have stealth candidate. The papist conspiracy may be alive after all.
Now if only John Kerry will run again and convert to Catholicism. hmmmmmmmmmmm
I’m willing to consider McCain an honorary mackerel-snapper.
The Democrats — well, Joe Biden’s gonna have to spend a LOT of Saturday evenings at confession between now and the first primaries. But then, so should we all.
Dave, the point about being “positive” or “nagative” was yours, not mine. My point is that you are a liar and a hypocrite, who feels free to make negative statements about people who disagree with you, while getting the vapors whenever anyone dares to hand the same thing back to you.
Your list of “positives” is nothing more than self-congratulation, and most of the items on the list are either false, so vague as to be meaningless, or carefully defined to fit the circumstances. For example, when you say that there have been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11, first, that is false, second, I don’t understand the importance of domestic versus foreign terrorist attacks. There have been numerous terrorist attacks in which Americans have been killed.
Stock market up. You mean today? No? Since the high point it achieved during the Clinton presidency? No. Then since when? Since the lowest point it achieved during the Bush presidency? That’s not much of an accomplishment, I have to say.
And “50 million newly converted people of liberty in the mideast,” what is that even supposed to mean? Does it mean that Iraq and Afghanistan are free and stable states? Does it mean that gangs of kidnapers are unable to roam the streets? No?
If you want to say something “positive,” do something other than making meaningless self-congratulatory statements. For example, you could express your gratitude to the liberals who pay the taxes that finance the handouts you depend on to survive. That would be a positive statement of the sort you are constantly demanding from others.
Mary –
You were honking our collective gooses when you wrote the following:
The Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) were fighting efforts to lower admission requirements for favored groups: women and minorities. In an attempt to lessen the perception of the school’s elite status and increase the diversity of its student population, the administration did what others in its situation usually do and gave extra credits to females and black and brown males to compensate for lower academic and standardized test scores. Non-African-American and Non-Hispanic males had to meet more rigorous standards to be admitted. Heck, even you might have qualified for admission.
In 1983 the CAP magazine Prospect did indeed publish an essay titled “In Defense of Elitism” (link to PDF file) which contained the following:
The essay, by H. W. Crocker III, now an editor for Regnery Books, was a satire according to Dinesh D’Souza, the Prospect’s editor at the time. Even the excerpt above – read by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) during the Alito hearings — smacks of satire, no?
By the way, Mr. D’Souza, enfant terrible of the Reagan revolution, is not a white male as you can see from the pictures on his website.
I don’t believe that Judge Alito owes you or anyone else an explanation. I do believe that a couple of folks on the Senate Judiciary Committee owe him an apology.
So after a couple of drinks, Teddy K. says to Chucky S., “Tell you what. Let’s get out of here and into my Oldsmobile and I’ll give you a lift home.”
Mary, You came through as expected with not a single positive thought in your response. Your response was weird in itself. So Libya renouncing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is self congratulatory to me? Are you practicing mental masturbation up there in windy and cold Taxachussets? If you are, remember that we in SC are watching how you are wasting billions and billions of dollars on your Big Dig in Boston. And you have the gall to post about anyone else freeloading from Uncle Sam.
As I noted before, you are a perpetually negative, hostile, Brad-hating queen of the dark side. Be grateful for living in the greatest nation that ever existed and try to cheer up a little bit.
Dave, again, it is YOU who is falling on your sofa in a faint when other people are “negative.” My point wasn’t about being “positive” or being “negative,” it was about the fact that you’re a hypocrite. You don’t mind falsely attacking the patriotism of other people, and falsely accusing them of supporting al Qaeda, but anytime anyone points out that you are a liar and a freeloader, you burst into tears about how “negative” they’re being and reach for your smelling salts.
And again, what does “50 million newly converted people of liberty in the middle east” mean? Does it mean that bands of kidnapers aren’t roaming the streets?
If you want to be positive, don’t invent a bunch of illusory “accomplishments” supposedly achieved by someone you support politically. Say something positive about people you disagree with.
And what does it matter to you what the people of Massachusetts spend federal tax money on, so long as they put in more than they take out (which they do)? If some of the money is wasted, that’s a grievance of theirs, not of yours. You don’t pay any of that excess money; you don’t even pay for the resources you consume.
Again, would it kill you to say to the people of Massachusetts, “thanks for being educated and productive so you can pay the taxes that keep me from starving?”
Mike, you are as dishonest as you are retarded:
********************************************
Launched in 1972, the year Alito graduated, CAP had an innocuous-sounding name that disguised a less benign agenda, which included preventing women and minorities from entering an institution that had long been a bastion of white male privilege. In a 1973 article in Prospect, a magazine CAP published, Shelby Cullom Davis, one of its founders, harked back to the days when a gathering of Princeton alumni consisted of “a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds.” Lamented Cullom Davis: “I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed.” Another article published that same year bemoaned the fact that “the makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse” in recent years–Princeton had begun admitting women in 1969–and wondered aloud what might happen if the university adopted a “sex-blind” policy “removing limits on the number of women.” In an unsuccessful effort to forestall this frightening development, the executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, “Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy.”
********************************************
From “The Nation,” December 12, 2005.
Again, in case you need it repeated so you will understand it:
“Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy.”
They weren’t arguing against affirmative action. They were arguing in favor of affirmative action, just like I said. They supported the exclusion of more qualified women and African American applicants in order to benefit less qualified white male applicants.
Now, I don’t know if it’s your stupidity causing you not to know or understand this fact, or if it’s your dishonesty causing you to try to cover up something you do know about. But the denial of a fact by a stupid and dishonest person such as yourself doesn’t render the fact untrue.
Mary, After Ted Kennedy’s bar bill is added into the Mass. state federal handouts, then Massachusetts takes the prize for being the biggest freeloader state.
You also stated this above. “I don’t understand the importance of domestic versus foreign terrorist attacks.”
That is exactly the kind of thinking that a patriotic American citizen would never say. That kind of thinking is what lost the last election for Monsieur Kerry, also known now as Mrs. Heinz’s worst half.
Dave, people in Massachusetts receive 78 cents worth of federal services for every $1.00 of federal taxes they pay. You receive $1.36 in federal handouts for every $1.00 of federal taxes you pay. I don’t think adding Ted Kennedy’s bar bill comes anywhere close to bringing the federal expenditures in Massachusetts anywhere near what Massachussetts contributes in federal taxes.
No, I think the excess isn’t directed toward Ted Kennedy’s bar bill. It goes toward financing the handouts you depend on to survive.
You can accuse other people of being unpatriotic all you want, I guess. It’s much easier than thanking the people of Massachusetts for their education and industry that allows you to remain ignorant and shiftless.
But really, what is the difference between an American killed in a foreign terrorist attack and an American killed in a domestic terrorist attack? If the Bush administration’s neglect allows terrorists to roam freely all over the world killing Americans (and others) at will, why isn’t that the important issue?