It Could Be Pure (P)BS
Anyone catch a glimpse of the Martin Luther docudrama? I understand it's pretty one-sided (i.e., anti-Catholic).
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Consecrated Virgins: Not Just Nuns
Since this article limits its discussion to women, I'd be kind of curious to know if lay men ever do this.
Since this article limits its discussion to women, I'd be kind of curious to know if lay men ever do this.
Monday, June 30, 2003
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Human Dignity?
I was watching a Sunday talking heads show this morning, and of course one of the topics of discussion was the Supreme Court's recent decision to make same-sex sodomy a constitutional right. In typically evading any discussion of the Court's end-run on Tenth Amendment, and the fact that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the left-liberal talking heads said that he supported the Court's decision because the law in question had "oppressed" homosexuals by depriving them of their human dignity. I heard this and thought to myself, how is a homosexually oriented person's dignity being suppressed by a law that prohibits behavior that is intrinsically undignified? Sad is the day when our society and culture includes within the standard of human dignity conduct that is both biologically and morally unnatural. Oro pro nobis.
I was watching a Sunday talking heads show this morning, and of course one of the topics of discussion was the Supreme Court's recent decision to make same-sex sodomy a constitutional right. In typically evading any discussion of the Court's end-run on Tenth Amendment, and the fact that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the left-liberal talking heads said that he supported the Court's decision because the law in question had "oppressed" homosexuals by depriving them of their human dignity. I heard this and thought to myself, how is a homosexually oriented person's dignity being suppressed by a law that prohibits behavior that is intrinsically undignified? Sad is the day when our society and culture includes within the standard of human dignity conduct that is both biologically and morally unnatural. Oro pro nobis.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Conservative Court?
The Rehnquist Court is often depicted by Democrats and liberals as being "conservative" because seven of the nine current justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. But if you were to survey its decisions over the past several years on social hot button issues like abortion, affirmative action and gay sodomy, the Court has been anything but conservative. Thus, the Left ought to stop wringing its hands about the possibility of Bush appointing a new Supreme Court justice. If anyone should be expressing concern, its conservatives like myself who don't want to see another Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy appointed.
Come to think of it, given the rich history of Republican Presidents naming liberal activist justices to the Supreme Court (Earl Warren was an Eisenhower appointment and Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, was appointed by Nixon) I'm suprised more liberal Democrats don't vote for Republican Presidential candidates.
The Rehnquist Court is often depicted by Democrats and liberals as being "conservative" because seven of the nine current justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. But if you were to survey its decisions over the past several years on social hot button issues like abortion, affirmative action and gay sodomy, the Court has been anything but conservative. Thus, the Left ought to stop wringing its hands about the possibility of Bush appointing a new Supreme Court justice. If anyone should be expressing concern, its conservatives like myself who don't want to see another Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy appointed.
Come to think of it, given the rich history of Republican Presidents naming liberal activist justices to the Supreme Court (Earl Warren was an Eisenhower appointment and Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, was appointed by Nixon) I'm suprised more liberal Democrats don't vote for Republican Presidential candidates.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
California SOL on SOL Law
With direct impact on the Situation, the SCOTUS strikes down a California law that retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for criminal cases involving child molestation.
With direct impact on the Situation, the SCOTUS strikes down a California law that retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for criminal cases involving child molestation.
Throwin' the Baby Out with the Bath Water
While I wasn't surprised to learn today that the SCOTUS had struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law, I was thrown for a loop when I read that the Court did it by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, a SCOTUS case from 1986 which had basically held that there was no fundamental right to engage in homosexual conduct. Wow.
While I wasn't surprised to learn today that the SCOTUS had struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law, I was thrown for a loop when I read that the Court did it by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, a SCOTUS case from 1986 which had basically held that there was no fundamental right to engage in homosexual conduct. Wow.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Rape Victim Allowed to Give Birth to Child
More or less sidestepping the issue of whether a pre-born child can be appointed a guardian, a Flori(duh) judge approves a retarded rape victim's medical plan that says carrying her pregnancy to term is in her best interest.
More or less sidestepping the issue of whether a pre-born child can be appointed a guardian, a Flori(duh) judge approves a retarded rape victim's medical plan that says carrying her pregnancy to term is in her best interest.
Latest (Personal) Religious Liberty News
In a case that I am involved in from a representational standpoint, a federal district court judge in So. Cal. has ruled that Section 2(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as applied through Section 2(a)(2)(C) of said statute, is unconstitutional. Harkening back to the rationale used by the SCOTUS to strike down the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act the federal judge in my case basically said that in enacting the RLUIPA, or the portion that he just struck down, Congress exceeded its constitutional authority.
Next stop -- the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case that I am involved in from a representational standpoint, a federal district court judge in So. Cal. has ruled that Section 2(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as applied through Section 2(a)(2)(C) of said statute, is unconstitutional. Harkening back to the rationale used by the SCOTUS to strike down the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act the federal judge in my case basically said that in enacting the RLUIPA, or the portion that he just struck down, Congress exceeded its constitutional authority.
Next stop -- the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
If Anyone Should be Investigated and Prosecuted Under RICO...
...it ought to be the baby butchers at Planned Parenthood. How many botched abortions have they committed and covered up? How systematic is the failure by Planned Parenthood clinics to fully inform prospective clients on the health risks of obtaining an abortion? Are you listening John Ashcroft?
...it ought to be the baby butchers at Planned Parenthood. How many botched abortions have they committed and covered up? How systematic is the failure by Planned Parenthood clinics to fully inform prospective clients on the health risks of obtaining an abortion? Are you listening John Ashcroft?
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
New PC Term for Left-Liberal Racism
"Positive Race Bias" -- first seen or heard (by me, at least) here.
"Positive Race Bias" -- first seen or heard (by me, at least) here.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Latest From SCOTUS
Internet filters in public libaries ok, affirmative action in public universities more or less ok, state anti-sodomy laws -- decision likely to come on Thursday (if it is struck down, it will likely be on Equal Protection grounds because the law in question is limited to same sex sodomizers).
Internet filters in public libaries ok, affirmative action in public universities more or less ok, state anti-sodomy laws -- decision likely to come on Thursday (if it is struck down, it will likely be on Equal Protection grounds because the law in question is limited to same sex sodomizers).
Friday, June 20, 2003
To Hell With The Establishment Clause!
Content to ascribe the bad acts of several bishops on the whole hierarchy, and viewing the Church as nothing more than an international institution that is comparable to La Cosa Nostra, Car(b)ozo School of Law Pinhead demands that the Federal government criminally prosecute the Church under RICO.
A federal RICO prosecution would force the Church to confront its problems more directly by forcing it to face a federal prosecutorial juggernaut, as opposed to isolated local actions. While worthwhile, commendable, and necessary, these local prosecutions are not enough to prompt the thoroughgoing national, institutional reforms needed.
Content to ascribe the bad acts of several bishops on the whole hierarchy, and viewing the Church as nothing more than an international institution that is comparable to La Cosa Nostra, Car(b)ozo School of Law Pinhead demands that the Federal government criminally prosecute the Church under RICO.
A federal RICO prosecution would force the Church to confront its problems more directly by forcing it to face a federal prosecutorial juggernaut, as opposed to isolated local actions. While worthwhile, commendable, and necessary, these local prosecutions are not enough to prompt the thoroughgoing national, institutional reforms needed.
Dismissed
Norma McCorvy's Rule 60 motion to repoen and reverse Roe v. Wade was dismissed by a federal court judge. Failure to file the motion within a "reasonable time" is cited. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Norma McCorvy's Rule 60 motion to repoen and reverse Roe v. Wade was dismissed by a federal court judge. Failure to file the motion within a "reasonable time" is cited. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
A Potential SCOTUS Case
Kansas State Attorney General says all abortions performed on a child under 16 MUST be reported to state authorities. The rationale for the requirement stems from the fact that sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and the pregnancy may be a result and evidence of sexual abuse. Sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate to me.
Kansas State Attorney General says all abortions performed on a child under 16 MUST be reported to state authorities. The rationale for the requirement stems from the fact that sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and the pregnancy may be a result and evidence of sexual abuse. Sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate to me.
California Judges and The Boy Scouts (cont.)
By a somewhat surprising unanimous vote, the California State Supreme Court has revised the state's Code of Judicial Ethics to where state court judges will now have to seriously think twice about being associated with "anti-gay" groups like the Boy Scouts.
Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics. The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.
I've read the language of the amendments, and I suppose it is somewhat of a comfort that the Court decided not to go full board and outright prohibit state judges from having an association with groups like the Boy Scouts (that would be unconstitutional). Nevertheless, there are some problems with the amendments that ultimately may have to be resolved through the litigation process. From a work standpoint, I would invite this, but from a taxpayer perspective, this is just another example of why liberals should never be given power to appoint judges.
By a somewhat surprising unanimous vote, the California State Supreme Court has revised the state's Code of Judicial Ethics to where state court judges will now have to seriously think twice about being associated with "anti-gay" groups like the Boy Scouts.
Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics. The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.
I've read the language of the amendments, and I suppose it is somewhat of a comfort that the Court decided not to go full board and outright prohibit state judges from having an association with groups like the Boy Scouts (that would be unconstitutional). Nevertheless, there are some problems with the amendments that ultimately may have to be resolved through the litigation process. From a work standpoint, I would invite this, but from a taxpayer perspective, this is just another example of why liberals should never be given power to appoint judges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)