Category Archives: Judicial Issues
By electing President Obama in 2008, we in turn got two hyper-liberal Supreme Court Justices—Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—and a host of new laws that violate the very core of our beliefs. And by re-electing Obama in 2012, America exacerbated the situation.
As a direct result of Obama’s successful appointments to the highest court, same-sex marriage may soon be the law of the land. We cannot sit back and watch Obama and his radical allies trample our beliefs. We must defend our faith and do everything in our power to stop this assault on religion in America. The reality is there isn’t much we can do to influence the Supreme Court’s rulings on same-sex marriage.
They say it’s not over until the fat lady sings.The team here at Catholic Advocate will not stop fighting for traditional marriage, or any of our core beliefs.
You can contact your Member of Congress here and tell them to support marriage between a man and a woman.
Judiciary (Chapter XI)
“Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community” (Rerum Novarum, 34). (more…)
The U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. Solicitor General and political activist Elena Kagan by a vote of 63 – 37 to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kagan, at 50 years of age, will now hold a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. Elena Kagan has not served a single day on any federal court. But, there is plenty known about her work in the Clinton White House, as President Obama’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court. Also, Kagan’s answers during her confirmation prompted our community, through Catholic Advocate Voice, to send over 3,000 letters to the U.S. Senate urging opposition to her confirmation. Even though we did not prevail, they made a difference.
By Anne Hendershott
During the past decade—beginning with a PBS broadcast in 2000 entitled On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying, and culminating with the provisions for “end of life” counseling in the current health care legislation—assisted suicide and euthanasia have become so successfully defined down that even Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) volunteered to co-host a luncheon and fundraiser last year for Compassion and Choices of Northern California—the assisted suicide advocacy organization formerly known as the Hemlock Society.
Indeed, for Progressive Democrats like Feinstein and other liberal lawmakers, the movement for assisted suicide and euthanasia has become the new frontier for the freedom to choose. And, like abortion advocacy organizations, powerful pro-death advocacy organizations—some with annual budgets of more than a million dollars—have emerged with generous funding from leftist foundations like the Tides Foundation.
According to Wesley Smith, a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute and author of Culture of Death, “Compassion and Choices clearly wants to become the Planned Parenthood of assisted suicide, no doubt hoping one day to receive public funds and medical referrals for end-of-life counseling, and to facilitate assisted suicide.” (more…)
Thursday, July 8, 2010, Federal District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
The Catholic Advocate community might remember we previously alerted you to this campaign to repeal DOMA legislatively.
We predicted back on January 4, 2010:
“Advocates of same-sex marriage are working overtime to have H.R. 3567 reach the floor of the House this year and repeal a 13 year-old law previously supported by 85 percent of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. If they succeed in passing the bill, and it is signed by President Obama, 40 states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages making the successes in Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont that much more relevant. Democrats will have learned nothing from the current health care debate or the voices of the voters in the states that have repealed gay marriage initiatives. Democrats in Congress are nearing desperation from their low-approval ratings. The base of the Democrat party dealt with a year of disappointment when campaign promises did not translate into actions. Democrats will be looking for ways to re-energize their disappointed base leading into the November 2, 2010 mid-term elections. The unfortunate casualty will be the sanctity of marriage.”
President Obama is still committed to his campaign promise to repeal DOMA calling it “discriminatory.” The case in Massachusetts was brought by state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), the Kennedy-clan hand-picked candidate who lost to now Senator Scott Brown. Since the suit was filed against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding a federal law, it was defended in court by the U.S. Justice Department, specifically the Office of the Solicitor General led by now Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
This case will no doubt now move to a higher court where once again the Obama Justice Department will need to “defend” DOMA.
Check back with Catholic Advocate to learn how you can lend your voice to oppose this latest attempt to redefine marriage through judicial activism.
By Matt Smith
During questioning from Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK), Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan responded, “I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I’ll make you another: I’ll re-read The Federalist Papers.”
The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitutional Convention as part of what today would be considered a massive intellectual public relations campaign for state ratification. What Senator Coburn might have thought to press Elena Kagan on was whether she had recently re-read the key document of America written before the Constitution.
On Sunday, America commemorates the 234th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A document signed by fifty-six patriots who believed:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As you examine the writings of the time, the Founding Fathers in their drafting of what has been dubbed “The Charters of Freedom” viewed the documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, held 1774-1789, as a continuous philosophical formation of our country.
However, on January 22, 1973, seven justices on the Supreme Court inserted words into the Constitution under the guise of privacy and forgetting the “unalieanable” right to life written in the Declaration of Independence, our country’s first founding document.
Since 1973, averaging estimates from both the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute and Centers for Disease Control brings us to 3,804 abortions per day or roughly 51,373,020 children who never had the chance to invoke their unalienable rights.
Instead of asking if Elena Kagan has read The Federalist Papers – ask her how she is going to interpret the document they are about from the highest court in the land. Does she think the Constitution is a living document? Does she think the Constitution should be modernized? Does she think international law should be consulted as she has written? Since President Obama publicly said he would nominate someone who shared his world view, how is she going to use such a view in her approach to rulings?
President Obama decided on March 18, 2008 to open his major address on race during the 2008 presidential campaign by highlighting that the drafters and signers of the Declaration wanted “to form a more perfect union.” The speech is filled with a history lesson and rhetoric on important issues such as race relations and civil rights. It is clear though, he chose to pick and choose which sections of the Declaration to highlight.
Unfortunately, the one civil right omitted from the speech delivered by the man who broke down the very barriers he talked about that day was the right to life. The omission is one seen time and again by certain Members of Congress. They can be seen on C-SPAN standing in the well of the House of Representatives or Senate speaking with all their oratory abilities on the rights of citizens but not once mentioning the unborn.
The Founding Fathers had a “world view” for our country and the principles to uphold it. We would be served well and placed once again down the path to becoming a shining city on the hill if elected officials referenced our Charters of Freedom instead of trying to constantly re-write them.
So on this July 4th, maybe President Obama, his Supreme Court nominee, and those in Congress who repeatedly vote for pro-abortion policies can take a moment to read the Declaration of Independence and be reminded of the rights that were written down by the Founders not inserted by the Court 197 years later.
Matt Smith is Vice President of Catholic Advocate
On May 17, 2010, Catholic Advocate President Deal Hudson broke the news that the USCCB Belongs to Group Supporting Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Nominee.
This followed on work Catholic Advocate unvieled in February when we highlighted some of the activities of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and asked “Why Did the USCCB Join This Civil Rights Organization?”
Late on May 19, 2010, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced they had withdrawn their membership from The Leadership Conference.
In response, Catholic Advocate President Deal Hudson commented:
“It’s a sad fact of politics that organizations originally founded for one purpose undergo changes over time that affect their mission. With the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops removing itself from the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, the bishops have recognized, as Bishop William Murphy put it, ‘The LCCR has moved beyond advocacy of traditional civil rights to advocacy of positions which do not reflect the principles and policies of the bishops’ Conference.’ No one will doubt the ongoing commitment of the Catholic bishops to upholding civil and human rights, but this action was necessary to avoid any confusion about its protection of the most basic human right, the right to life of the not-yet-born.”
The announcement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is below:
Bishops Withdraw From Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Coalition; Renew Opposition to Discrimination
WASHINGTON-The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has pulled out of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition group founded in 1950.
At the same time the USCCB reiterated its commitment to oppose discrimination based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disabling condition, or age, and said that these are grave injustices and affronts to human dignity.
The bishops withdrew from LCCR after the coalition took one more position in opposition to USCCB policy, this time taking a stand on a Supreme Court nominee. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, NY, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Peace, announced the withdrawal May 19. His statement follows:
In light of recent events, it has become increasingly clear that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ continued membership in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is not possible because of the LCCR’s expanded and broadened agenda. The interests of the Leadership Conference and those of the USCCB have diverged as the LCCR has moved beyond advocacy of traditional civil rights to advocacy of positions which do not reflect the principles and policies of the bishops’ Conference. In recent years, the Leadership Conference has joined others in advocating or opposing nominees for the Supreme Court, a practice which clearly contradicts USCCB policy and compromises the principled positions of the bishops. The latest example of this is the LCCR support of the Solicitor General’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
The USCCB deeply regrets this action has become necessary and pledges to continue our ongoing work on civil rights, racial and ethnic justice, and the protection of human life and dignity. While we cannot continue as a member of this coalition, we will work with those, including members of the Leadership Conference, on particular issues that advance the bishops’ commitment to oppose all forms of racism, unjust discrimination and bigotry.
As the bishops said in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:
It is important for our society to continue to combat discrimination based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disabling condition, or age, as these are grave injustices and affronts to human dignity. Where the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice, including vigorous action to remove barriers to education and equal employment for women and minorities. (86)