Why filibuster?

[TragicMonkey]

Alito Sides With Missouri Inmate on Death Row

Walked right into that one, didn't you...?

Isn't Alito Catholic?

eta: Oh, and are you trying to be deceptive, with selective quoting? You quote the bit about the appeal bringing up racism. That was the part that was denied, and Alito had nothing to do with that. He only voted on the cruel-and-unusual bit for the manner of execution.

 

[BPSCG]

Isn't Alito Catholic?

I think so. Why?

eta: Oh, and are you trying to be deceptive, with selective quoting? You quote the bit about the appeal bringing up racism. That was the part that was denied, and Alito had nothing to do with that. He only voted on the cruel-and-unusual bit for the manner of execution.

Sorry - have to confess to hasty reading and subsequent editing to make context clear, when in fact I destroyed the context (why didn't you read this a few hours ago when I could have gone back and fixed it?).

Nevertheless, none of this bolsters the Unhinged Left hypothesis that Alito is the vote that will cast civil rights back into the 19th century. His first vote on the SC is to stay the execution of a black man who killed a white man.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think so. Why?

Why, because his religion is very much against capital punishment. And here he is, devoutly voting the way the pope would want him to. Mwah ha ha! You can't win, you know. No matter how he votes, people will find sinister reasons for it.

Sorry - have to confess to hasty reading and subsequent editing to make context clear, when in fact I destroyed the context (why didn't you read this a few hours ago when I could have gone back and fixed it?).

Nevertheless, none of this bolsters the Unhinged Left hypothesis that Alito is the vote that will cast civil rights back into the 19th century. His first vote on the SC is to stay the execution of a black man who killed a white man.

I guess I'm not an Unhinged Leftist, then. I worry less about what he'll contribute to civil rights cases than what he'll contribute to checks and balances. Do I worry too much? Only time will tell.

 

[Mycroft]

Why, because his religion is very much against capital punishment. And here he is, devoutly voting the way the pope would want him to. Mwah ha ha! You can't win, you know. No matter how he votes, people will find sinister reasons for it.

Is it? Since when is Catholicism against capital punishment?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Is it? Since when is Catholicism against capital punishment?

It isn't against it totally, but Pope John Paul said a few years back it should be exceedingly rare, and only in a very few instances and only if the guilt of the person was unquestionable, IIRC.

 

[Manny]

It isn't against it totally, but Pope John Paul said a few years back it should be exceedingly rare, and only in a very few instances and only if the guilt of the person was unquestionable, IIRC.

More specfically, those exceedingly rare circumstances exist only when it is the only way to secure the guilty from repeating his crime -- i.e., only in places without secure prisons. This has been mainstream Catholic teaching for 30 years or so, and is in the Catechism, but it is not Doctrine (as is teaching against abortion, for example).

That said, prior to his confirmation (heh), the left was beating up Justice Alito for being too pro-death penalty.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Is it? Since when is Catholicism against capital punishment?

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s.../rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

The Catholic argument is that capital punishment, because it is so very extreme, and because it prevents the rehabilitation of the sinner, is only acceptable when absolutely necessary to protect the lives of others. Since that is not the case when life imprisonment is an option, there is no acceptable argument for applying capital punishment instead.

The Catholic Church holds all human life to be sacred, not just unborn life.

 

[Mark]

Except that they're not. And you still haven't answered that question you promised to answer.

Can't answer a question you refuse to ask. If I could, I'd apply for the JREF Prize.

 

[Mycroft]

It isn't against it totally, but Pope John Paul said a few years back it should be exceedingly rare, and only in a very few instances and only if the guilt of the person was unquestionable, IIRC.

Ironic, considering their religion begins with capital punishment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ironic, considering their religion begins with capital punishment.

And that they applied it to other people for centuries. But nobody accuses religions of consistency.

 

[Mycroft]

And that they applied it to other people for centuries. But nobody accuses religions of consistency.

If religions didn't evolve, where would we be?

 

[Art Vandelay]

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Actually, this comports well with how Catholics have applied the death penalty in the past. The Inquisition, for instance, would get people to confess and repent, then kill them. So they died after redemption, and before they could commit a new sin, thus ensuring they went to heaven. Criminals on death row, however, generally are unrepetent, so killing them will guarantee they go to hell. The Catholic position is that they should be kept alive so that they have a chance to repent. However, this would suggest that if the issue is "possibility of redeeming himself", then a death row inmate who has confessed his sins may be killed. So if you ever find yourself on death row in a Catholic country, you might want to avoid expressing any remorse.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If religions didn't evolve, where would we be?

Rejecting the nonsense as obvious nonsense, rather than trying to rebrand it for a new age?

 

[Almo]

They wanna look like David taking on Goliath and get sympathy. The fillbuster is pointless. The time to fight Bush was before he got elected now it's useless. Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse. It's not going to make any difference except maybe in the minds of a few stupid people, who might vote.

If it's put off long enough (three more years) the next president will get to nominate...

 

[Jocko]

If religions didn't evolve, where would we be?

Iran. Durr.