History is largely made up of stories of men and women struggling for power. Our history books are filled with battles between someone was king and someone who wanted to be king. It’s been written often that George Washington easily could have become king of the very young America. His refusal to grasp at power is such a historical anomaly that he stands out as one of the greatest historical figures in the history of man.
Presidents have limited power because a great man like Washington limited his own power. Unfortunately, Justice Anthony Kennedy is not a great man.
Hey, America went two centuries without a king. It was time we got one, right? Justice Anthony Kennedy is the new king of America. Unelected. Legislating without limit. And cool robes.
Appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy acts as the Court’s swing vote in many cases, and as a result has held special prominence in many politically charged 5–4 decisions.
The past week offers two examples of 5-4 decisions which show that Kennedy is now the most powerful man in America.
In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that child rapes may be “devastating,” but don’t compare to murder. He didn’t get that from The Constitution. Justice Kennedy wrote that, “Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule.” Now, of course, pro-lifers will scoff a little at a justice who allows abortion to wax poetic about “the dignity of the person.” But it’s the “evolving standards” line which also irks me. He’s supposed to be basing his opinion on the Constitution, not evolving standards which exist in the mind of Justice Kennedy.
Here’s the thing -I’m pretty sure that if you took a poll you’d get a pretty good consensus that the death penalty for child rapists might be a good thing.
What also troubles me is another ruling issued yesterday where the RIGHT to bear arms was up in the air yesterday. Mind you, it is an enumerated right yet it was nearly taken away yesterday but for the opinion of one justice – Anthony Kennedy.
I get a little worried about a man who can “disappear” a right. It seems rights are no longer from our Creator but are derived from Justice Anthony Kennedy.
And in the many 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court, Kennedy is often the swing and decisive vote.
Abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy is likely legal in every state in America currently because Anthony Kennedy is pro-choice.
Terrorists have habeas right because Kennedy has deemed it so.
We have the right to own a gun because Justice Kennedy has deemed it.
Students can’t raise a banner saying “Bong hits for Jesus” because Kennedy said so.
Anthony Kennedy ruled that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses in his eminent domain concurrence.
Partial-birth abortion can be limited because Kennedy joined the constructionists of the Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.
Now, mind you I sometimes agree with Justice Kennedy just as I would likely agree with the actions of a well meaning monarch. The problem I have is that he has the power to make those decisions. A tyrant can do many good things. That is not the question. I question from where his power is derived in America.
George Washington shunned an excess of power. Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to accrue it.
Justice Kennedy’s actions seem to shine a light on the importance of the power of the President to nominate justices, making this election of even more importance. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. David Souter, who is only is 68, is reportedly interested in retiring. If McCain is elected we could possibly curtail the power of the judiciary and return power to the people and their elected representatives.
June 27, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Rope. Tree. Child molester. Some assembly required.
June 27, 2008 at 6:47 pm
BTW, what scares me about this election is that I’m not entirely convinced McCain will appoint justices any better than Obama would. After all, Kennedy was nominated by Reagan.
June 27, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Wow you really take the Catechism seriously on the death penalty issue! Good thing you’re not a cafeteria Catholic!
(And before you indignantly point out that the Catechism doesn’t rule out the death penalty in all cases, ask yourself whether the enthusiasm for blood justice you display here is keeping in the spirit of The Chruch’s teachings.)
June 27, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Please look at this passage and the significance Our LORD gives to the protection of children. He makes it very clear what should be the consequence after a child’s innocence has been violated….
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm
I have 6 children – I can only pray that I would do the right thing if some animal who was formerly a human being came and violated any one of them.
And please do not counter argue with “blood justice” in favor of someone who has forfeited their right to anything human by violating a child. This is violating the victim and their relatives a second time.
It is not about being blood thirsty and wanting justice. It is about the pathetic approach by our wimpy society to call a spade a spade and protect our children, and weakest links of society, PERIOD!
But then again, what can you expect when contraception, abortion, euthanasia, porn… you name it are rampant. The TRUTH, that EVERY LIFE IS SACRED is gone. It has to start with the weakest in our society. It cannot be that the sex offender receives more protection than the child or the old person, or the man who was recently hit by a car and left lying in the street. What a barbaric society do we live in?
The spirit of the the church’s teaching as well as CHRIST’s teaching embraces both justice and mercy – give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and to GOD what is GOD. It is completely legitimate to find the harshest punishments for someone who cannot exercise self-control and keep is sex drive in check. Would I prefer them somewhere in the North American tundra working their butts off on bread, water and Holy Scripture? You bet. But that’s not possible because of Human Rights nuts who only make noise when a criminal’s “human rights” are violated (what human rights – is he still a human person?), but the same activists refuse to fight for human rights for an innocent unborn babe.
Give me a break!!!
The priorities are off, and that’s the real problem.
Blessings!
June 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm
If and when most 2nd & 3rd trimester abortion is outlawed again, women infect themselves with rusty coathangers in back alley-ways, no problemo: HOHO/.96 cents/pint – Bactine – bacitracin – penicillin…
You’re welcome,
– Pete Moss
June 27, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Kennedy’s not the problem – the four justices to the left of him are the problem. As you say, Kennedy voted for limits on partial birth abortion and for the individual right to bear arms – the other four didn’t.
Would you rather have Kennedy or another Ginsberg or Breyer?
June 27, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Pete,
Couple of points.
#1. The trimester system has been abolished in abortion jurisprudence for a LONG time. It’s about “viability” now. The current rule is that prior to viability, a woman can have an abortion for no reason at all (government restrictions impermissible). AFTER viability, a woman can have an abortion for any reason at all (government can restrict, but must allow a “health” exception which can include mental health and the mental burden of being forced to have a child you don’t want – see Doe v. Bolton).
…so you’re a bit behind there. Might want to read up some before you join in on the big-boy talk.
#2. Your coat hanger scare tactic is based on some exceedingly bad information not supported by the CDC. Arguing based on scare tactics and lies is not something people should do…so stop, please.
#3. Overruling Roe (et al) would not make abortion illegal. It would only reserve the matter to the states. To the extent you think a judicial appointee could make all abortions illegal like that…well…you’re wrong. Again, adults are talking — please restrain yourself until you have something worth saying.
God Bless,
Ryan
June 28, 2008 at 12:26 am
Great points, Ryan. I never cease to be amazed at the dramatic responses of the liberals. I can point out partial-birth abortions require a child to be partially delivered only to have brain matter sucked out, and the liberals cry,”coat-hangers”!
Pete-please read 9th grade Biology. It might help you!
June 28, 2008 at 3:45 am
Anon,
Thanx, but I was probably excessively curt. It really gets me cranked, though, when know-nothings jump in assuming we’ve never heard any of their arguments before. Curiously, I never hear anyone complaining about how unsafe legal abortions can be…
…so much for it being about “helping women”…
May God have mercy on their souls.
God Bless,
Ryan
June 28, 2008 at 4:47 am
About the death penalty…I believe the Church teaches that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort when there are either 1) not enough resources to keep the person alive and jailed, or 2) when the person is such a threat that the only way to stop him from causing insane harm to others is to employ the death penalty.
People never cease to be people. No matter what choices we make in our lives, no matter how horrific, we are still humans, people made in the image and likeness of God, though some may completely turn away from that. Animals have mortal souls, they cease to exist once they die, people, even evil ones, have immortal souls that will linger forever either in Paradise with Christ or in the complete absence of God, Hell.
Who are we, mere creatures, to say who lives and dies? Wouldn’t that just make us tyrants, too? Child molesters and the like should be locked away forever without parole so that they can no longer harm anyone. But we cannot take away the opportunity and gift of life that has been given to them by God, not us, because in every human heart there is the longing for God and the chance to repent and turn back to Him. What if a convicted child-molester, pedophile, murderer was sentenced to life and then experienced conversion while imprisoned? That man can still enjoy eternity with God, though he will pay for his actions through Purgatory. But if we just put him on death row, he may not have that same opportunity for conversion and then die without repenting. Though it is our duty to bring those entrusted to us (our children and families and loved ones) into Heaven first, it is also our duty to love those who afflict us and do what we can to ensure their salvation, as well. What did Christ say during His Passion, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
It is not completely legitimate to find the harshest punishments for someone who cannot exercise self-control in his sexuality. It is legitimate to employ both justice and mercy, which does not necessarily mean the death sentence. While I do not oppose the death penalty in cases that it is the only resolution, I do oppose it when it is not the last option.
I agree, priorities are not on track and that’s what’s causing all the real issues.
“The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
‘The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.'” (Catechism par. 27).
June 28, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It is certainly true that every human person has an immortal soul, and this soul will either be in Heaven or in Hell.
When the Catechism talks about the “invitation to converse with GOD is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being”, it is a beautiful and true statement.
The question is, though, HOW do we achieve this goal, when a human person seems to have forfeited every bit of his humanity and behaves like an animal.
My husband made a great point. JESUS had plenty of opportunity to address the barbarism of the Romans outright, last of all on the cross (capital punishment), esp. as the good thief was concerned. But JESUS did not. It seems that precisely because of this cruel consequence of this good thief’s horrible deeds, this thief came to his senses and repented. The other one did not…. I think that situation gives a lot of food for thought.
The second point I would like to make concerns “the harshest possible punishment”. I still believe this to be necessary. Now, what exactly that translates into, a society needs to figure out. The more godly a society is the more just as well as merciful her justice system will be. But because every Truth is being mocked and turned upside down this is not the case.
When JESUS talks about chopping off the hand that sinned or plucking out the eye that sinned HE certainly does not mean this in the literal sense. What HE does mean, however, is to take the most drastic measures necessary to stop this sin – some saints call this “doing violence to yourself”.
So, when JESUS talks about “the millstone around someone’s neck and drowning them in the depths of the sea”, HE may have meant this literally, but maybe not. Maybe HE really only tried to convey with this harshest of all expressions that the punishment absolutely needs to match the crime – potentially execution!
Because of our ungodliness all concepts of truth and justice are out the window.
Therein is the real problem: a Supreme Court justice, smart, studied man with a lot of life experience has the gall to talk about “evolving standards of decency” – I have no words – what do you call that?
The punishment of criminals must not conform to the rule of evolving standards of decency and the dignity of the person. They must conform to the crime committed!
Blessings!
June 28, 2008 at 11:38 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm
You are absolutely correct.
However, the punishment of criminals should conform to the dignity of the person, we should never ever forget this no matter what, and it must conform to the crime committed. I think we can have punishments that do both while serving justice and mercy.
June 29, 2008 at 2:19 am
Nicely stated, Ms. Portman.
July 1, 2008 at 7:23 pm
What does it mean for the punishment to fit the crime? It means what action on the part of or in defense of the victim would have been justified during the commission of the crime. If the victim or another would have been justified in killing the criminal, then the death penalty is inherently justified for that crime.
The main reason for not killing every such criminal is that the government needs to practice temperance to keep itself from true tyranny. But child rapists are so far beyond any demarcation in this regard that you can only question the thinking of those who do not reserve the harshest penalties for this crime.
As for Kennedy: have you ever seen a justice go this way and that way, this way and that way, go this way and that?
July 1, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment, then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm–without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself–the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2266-2267; see also- Evenangelium vitae, John Paul II, par. 56).
Straight from the Catholic Church’s mouth.
July 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I can consent to the Church teaching that proportionality in justice should be tempered with a respect for human life, so that execution would be avoided whenever possible.
I won’t consent to the idea that executing, or even giving the harshest punishment, to child rapists is cruel or unusual.
July 2, 2008 at 3:13 am
I do not support pro choice. I support pro life, and allot of Catholics who pray for the little crucified infants. Ugh, what a hell awaits abortion clinicians.
I am not against coat hangers – for any woman who has an illegal abortion 2nd or 3rd trimester – deserves a rusty coat hanger infection (tetanus).
2nd & 3rd trimester abortions are morally illegal, but not criminally illegal – so what? It still ain’t right, unless the mother’s life is at stake. I can open an Ebay store, for rusty coat hangers, for mothers stupid enough to try it if the laws change back to the 1950’s standards, around here.
I just want to meet a nice girl and start a family. Some of these pro choice people do and kill them.
Dominus Vobiscum
-Pete Moss
July 3, 2008 at 6:03 am
Frusciante Maria Portman said…
… “I believe the Church teaches that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort when there are either 1) not enough resources to keep the person alive and jailed, or 2) when the person is such a threat that the only way to stop him from causing insane harm to others is to employ the death penalty.”
“The Church” has such a “teaching”? If so it’s flakey. Howzegonna cause more insane harm in segregation units (one man cells)? He’s not; and states don’t save money by snuffing, because it costs a bundle to execute people.
The right answer is: It’s either all or nothing – either a state adopts a death penalty or abolishes it altogether. Forget about administering it, that’s up to juries who are unpredictable.
What the Church really ought to pray for and set its sights on is passage of a Federal Law requiring pricey DNA testing in all capitol cases. Why pricey? Because I know from experience that when I extract my own DNA, I require a fancy sandwich, and allot of vitamins to quickly regain my strength afterwards as near-death experiencer, stunt man cyclist…
++ Al Umini Mann !
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them …
July 4, 2008 at 10:30 pm
New Timon said: “I won’t consent to the idea that executing, or even giving the harshest punishment, to child rapists is cruel or unusual.”
Then you’re not consenting to the Church’s teachings, as laid out in the Catechism paragraphs I quoted above. I think the issue with not accepting this is personal pride and anger, both of which can be destructive and lead to sin. God will judge everyone, so we don’t have to. Our job is to administer just punishments that take care of the offense on an earthly scale and to not worry about the rest. God is just and merciful to us all the time, shouldn’t we practice the same to others?
Pete- the Church does have such a teaching. I think you skipped my post with the Catechism quotes altogether, because the teaching that I originally referred to is in there. Don’t be lazy, research something before you stick your foot in your mouth.
To save everyone a lot of toil and grief, below is the excerpt by John Paul II from Evangelium vitae quoted in the Catechism:
“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
You can read the rest of this here:
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
And nowhere does anything say that we should abolish the death penalty altogether. Each of the Church documents say that it should be used in times of extreme rarity and necessity only.