Vatican, Jun. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican press office has confirmed that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio - news) yesterday briefed a group of bishops on the forthcoming motu proprio expanding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal.
The Vatican Secretary of State spoke to "representatives from various episcopal conferences" about "the content and spirit" of the motu proprio, the Vatican announcement indicated. Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) joined the meeting to speak with the bishops for about an hour.
The publication of the document, along with "an extensive personal letter from the Holy Father," will take place "within a few days," the Vatican said. The statement did not confirm the July 7 publication date reported yesterday by the Kath.net news service.
The Vatican statement did indicate that the text of the motu proprio and the Pope's explanatory letter will now be sent to all of the world's bishops before the document is formally released. That mailing will also indicate when the Pope's new policies will take effect.
Among the prelates who took part in the June 27 meeting at the apostolic palace were Cardinal Camillo Ruini (bio - news)of Rome; Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, the president of the Italian bishops' conference; Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, the president of the German bishops' conference; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England; Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, the president of the French bishops' conference; Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, Switzerland; Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston; and Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Motu Propio "within a few days"
Like I said...let the countdown begin. ;-)
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
A shift in public opinion
Hat tip to Christina Dunigan and her Real Choice blog for this one.
As you can see from the charts below, the pro-life movement appears to be gaining significant ground. Hopefully the shift in responses from these Missourians polled over the last fifteen years is representative of our nation as a whole.
The chart above shows the overall trends, while the chart just below reveals that both genders are steering toward the "strongly pro-life" camp and away from "strongly pro-choice."
(Simply click on any of the charts below to enlarge.)
Look at the shift in men and women ages 18-29. The future is promising.
Another interesting chart; the most drastic influx of pro-lifers coming from the "Post-Graduate" crowd.
As you can see from the charts below, the pro-life movement appears to be gaining significant ground. Hopefully the shift in responses from these Missourians polled over the last fifteen years is representative of our nation as a whole.
The chart above shows the overall trends, while the chart just below reveals that both genders are steering toward the "strongly pro-life" camp and away from "strongly pro-choice."
(Simply click on any of the charts below to enlarge.)
Look at the shift in men and women ages 18-29. The future is promising.
Another interesting chart; the most drastic influx of pro-lifers coming from the "Post-Graduate" crowd.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
First Lincoln, and now Omaha
It seems the state of Nebraska is the unofficial capital of orthodox Catholicism in America.
Lincoln, Nebraska has long been known (among faithful, traditional-minded Catholics) for its bishop, Fabian Bruskewitz who, among other things, has publicly excommunicated members of Planned Parenthood and Call to Action. Lincoln is also the (American) diocese with the highest number of vocations (per capita), and is the only diocese without altar girls.
But now there's great news of yet another Nebraskan prelate, Archbishop Curtiss of Omaha. Here is a letter written by His Excellency which I found posted on The Cafeteria is Closed.
Lincoln, Nebraska has long been known (among faithful, traditional-minded Catholics) for its bishop, Fabian Bruskewitz who, among other things, has publicly excommunicated members of Planned Parenthood and Call to Action. Lincoln is also the (American) diocese with the highest number of vocations (per capita), and is the only diocese without altar girls.
But now there's great news of yet another Nebraskan prelate, Archbishop Curtiss of Omaha. Here is a letter written by His Excellency which I found posted on The Cafeteria is Closed.
June 5, 2007
Letters to the Editor
U.S.Catholic
205 W. Monroe St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Dear Editor,
I would like to respond to the article in your June edition entitled "A Betrothal Proposal" by Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch.
The teaching of the Catholic Church about fornication is clear and unambiguous: it is always objectively a serious sin (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1755, #1852, #2353). Couples who live together without marriage do in fact live in sin objectively.
Because the position of the authors is contrary to Church teaching about the intrinsic evil of fornication, I have disassociated the Omaha Archdiocese from the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University.
Neither Lawler nor Risch are reliable teachers of Catholic moral theology, and certainly are not spokespeople for the Church regarding human sexuality and sacramental marriage.
I remain sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Elden Francis Curtiss
Archbishop of Omaha
Ain't that the truth...
Diogenes has an amusing post over at Off the Record.
It's what he calls a "lived-experience quiz" (for Catholics).
Quiz question #1 reads:
For my non-Catholic readers, the sad truth is that the correct answer is D.
It's what he calls a "lived-experience quiz" (for Catholics).
Quiz question #1 reads:
At a typical Catholic parish in North America you are most likely to be denied Communion if the pastor knows that you are:
A- the legislative sponsor for legal abortion
B- divorced, and remarried outside the Church
C- wearing the Rainbow Sash to manifest your opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality
D- kneeling to receive Communion
For my non-Catholic readers, the sad truth is that the correct answer is D.
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Gang of 5
The Supreme Court just announced yet another (small) pro-life victory.
Today's 5-4 decision opened a loophole in the "Bipartisan" Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sponsored by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold and Republicratic Senator John McCain.
The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life suing the Federal Election Commission for barring them from so much as mentioning, in paid advertisments, the names of candidates for federal office. WRTL charged that the pertinent McCain-Feingold section of the law was unconstitutional, and was infringing upon their first ammendment rights.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that, when regulating what can be said in a campaign and when it may be said, “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”
The Catholic block on the bench -- what I have endearingly dubbed 'The Gang of 5' -- continues to steer our courts in the right direction.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) can dissent all they like.
'Cuz all we need is five.
;-)
Today's 5-4 decision opened a loophole in the "Bipartisan" Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sponsored by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold and Republicratic Senator John McCain.
The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life suing the Federal Election Commission for barring them from so much as mentioning, in paid advertisments, the names of candidates for federal office. WRTL charged that the pertinent McCain-Feingold section of the law was unconstitutional, and was infringing upon their first ammendment rights.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that, when regulating what can be said in a campaign and when it may be said, “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”
The Catholic block on the bench -- what I have endearingly dubbed 'The Gang of 5' -- continues to steer our courts in the right direction.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) can dissent all they like.
'Cuz all we need is five.
;-)
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Breyer the liar
One of my more recent interests (which, I’ve begun to notice tend to be set aside almost as quickly as they are picked up) is studying a few of the more contemporary developments and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Specifically, I’ve been reading up on some of the cases and opinions which have shaped our nation’s current legal position with regard to abortion.
In the future I hope to post, and comment on, what I consider to be the more significant and noteworthy progressions of the last four decades or so.
In this particular post, I thought I’d bring out of archive the transcript of the oral argument heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 8, 2006.
This was, of course, the partial-birth abortion case (Gonzales v. Carhart) – narrowly decided 5 to 4, on April 18th of this year upholding Congress’ ban of the brutal act.
Take a listen to this exchange between U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the constitutionality of the ban, and Justice Breyer who opposes it:
A bit of background. Breyer is here referring to Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court case decided in 2000 which struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions. “Stenhart” (as Breyer calls it) was, like this case, also decided 5-4. Only, it ruled that partial birth abortions are, in fact, protected by the United States Constitution, and that the Nebraska law was therefore unconstitutional. The recent shift in the Court’s opinion (by that one, solitary vote), can be justly attributed to President Bush and his appointment of Sam Alito, who took Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the bench upon her retirement in 2005. Back to the transcript.
Did you catch the slight of hand?
First, Breyer asks if the Court owes deference to a democratically elected congress (state or federal). Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret them; that is the fundamental nature of our system of government. So Solicitor General Clement answers in the affirmative: Yes, the Court ought to defer to Congress.
But then Breyer states, “Well, if we owe deference to [Congress], and I would have thought that we did [in “Stenhart”], then...in the Nebraska case, despite the deference that was owed, the Court came to the conclusion that the statute…was unconstitutional.”
Do you see it now?
He agrees deference is owed to Congress by the Court, and he suggests deference was provided in Stenberg v. Carhart. But then he admits it was not, saying, “despite the deference that was owed, the Court [concluded] that the statute...was unconstitutional.”
In other words:
1) Deference was provided in Stenhart
2) Deference was not provided in Stenhart
Breyer’s statement is a contradiction. It’s too bad General Clement did not catch it at the time. For the fact of the matter is Breyer (and the other four justices who voted with him in 2000) does not believe in deference to anything (the Constitution) or anyone (Congress)...but himself.
In the future I hope to post, and comment on, what I consider to be the more significant and noteworthy progressions of the last four decades or so.
In this particular post, I thought I’d bring out of archive the transcript of the oral argument heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 8, 2006.
This was, of course, the partial-birth abortion case (Gonzales v. Carhart) – narrowly decided 5 to 4, on April 18th of this year upholding Congress’ ban of the brutal act.
Take a listen to this exchange between U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the constitutionality of the ban, and Justice Breyer who opposes it:
JUSTICE BREYER: Just from my going through this record, I compare it with Stenhart, with what's in Congress. We have two cases here…My question would be, if this -- do we owe more deference to a congressional finding or to Congress than we owe to a State legislature? What is -- I mean, I take it a State legislature is democratically elected, and don't we owe similar deference to both?
A bit of background. Breyer is here referring to Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court case decided in 2000 which struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions. “Stenhart” (as Breyer calls it) was, like this case, also decided 5-4. Only, it ruled that partial birth abortions are, in fact, protected by the United States Constitution, and that the Nebraska law was therefore unconstitutional. The recent shift in the Court’s opinion (by that one, solitary vote), can be justly attributed to President Bush and his appointment of Sam Alito, who took Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the bench upon her retirement in 2005. Back to the transcript.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Breyer, I think you certainly owe deference to both. I think –
JUSTICE BREYER: Well, if we owe deference to both, and I would have thought that we did, then I think in the Nebraska case, despite the deference that was owed, the Court came to the conclusion that the statute of Nebraska was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother...
Did you catch the slight of hand?
First, Breyer asks if the Court owes deference to a democratically elected congress (state or federal). Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret them; that is the fundamental nature of our system of government. So Solicitor General Clement answers in the affirmative: Yes, the Court ought to defer to Congress.
But then Breyer states, “Well, if we owe deference to [Congress], and I would have thought that we did [in “Stenhart”], then...in the Nebraska case, despite the deference that was owed, the Court came to the conclusion that the statute…was unconstitutional.”
Do you see it now?
He agrees deference is owed to Congress by the Court, and he suggests deference was provided in Stenberg v. Carhart. But then he admits it was not, saying, “despite the deference that was owed, the Court [concluded] that the statute...was unconstitutional.”
In other words:
1) Deference was provided in Stenhart
2) Deference was not provided in Stenhart
Breyer’s statement is a contradiction. It’s too bad General Clement did not catch it at the time. For the fact of the matter is Breyer (and the other four justices who voted with him in 2000) does not believe in deference to anything (the Constitution) or anyone (Congress)...but himself.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Middle School field trip to Planned Parenthood
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
So the confirmation hearings for Judge Leslie Southwick (nominated to fill the almost 7-year-vacancy of a seat on the Fifth Circuit), are postponed once again. (I briefly discussed the Southwick nomination in my June 7th post, What a shame)
July is now the month to look forward to (that is, until July arrives, of course).
Suffice it to say, my sentiments align closely with Quin's from ConfirmThem.com:
For an excellent article about how the process typically works for Republican nominees, be sure to read this piece on the first* judge nominated to fill the vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court. A word of caution: you might want to take breathers, as you work your way through the article, to keep your blood pressure under control.
*Southwick is Bush's third choice.
July is now the month to look forward to (that is, until July arrives, of course).
Suffice it to say, my sentiments align closely with Quin's from ConfirmThem.com:
Seeing the news about another delay for Southwick, combined with a seemingly permanent delay on Keisler, makes me want to shout so many expletives that my access to this site would be permanently deleted. As usual, there is NO evidence that the White House (not that it has much power left) is really fighting for its nominees, and Specter seems to be rolling over, and nothing gets done, and yet another good man gets smeared.
For an excellent article about how the process typically works for Republican nominees, be sure to read this piece on the first* judge nominated to fill the vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court. A word of caution: you might want to take breathers, as you work your way through the article, to keep your blood pressure under control.
*Southwick is Bush's third choice.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Planned Barrenhood
Anyone who has spent so much as five minutes trying to unmask the evil of America's largest abortion provider with one sympathetic to a woman's "right" to abort, knows that Planned Parenthood is an upstanding organization because
1) They provide free contraceptives (see Condomism post below)
2) They offer a variety of other health services for women
3) They facilitate adoption services
The argument is, of course, a weak and unconvincing one for it seeks to justify the evil of abortion by weighing the crime of baby-killing against a laundry list of "respectable" companion causes. (As though Hitler's rise to power could ever be presented as a net plus for Germany in light of his remarkable leadership, and ability to draw a country out of catastrophic depression.)
But should you find yourself engaging someone in this particular argument, be sure to inform them their laundry list just got shorter.
According to the newest annual report submitted by Planned Parenthood, the organization performed 264,943 abortions in 2005 alone, up 3.9 percent from 2004.
But Douglas Scott, president of Life Decisions International, a Planned Parenthood watchdog group, points out that the abortion business referred only 1,414 pregnant women to adoption agencies in 2004, down more than 20 percent from 2003.
Yet in the 2005-2006 fiscal year (the newest data available), Planned Parenthood reported no referrals to adoption agencies.
"In fact, you will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott said.
It is precisely as we had expected it to be: Planned Parenthood is in the (very lucrative) business of destroying life, and not lifting so much as a finger towards preserving it.
Final Score
===========
PP: 264,943; Babies: 0
1) They provide free contraceptives (see Condomism post below)
2) They offer a variety of other health services for women
3) They facilitate adoption services
The argument is, of course, a weak and unconvincing one for it seeks to justify the evil of abortion by weighing the crime of baby-killing against a laundry list of "respectable" companion causes. (As though Hitler's rise to power could ever be presented as a net plus for Germany in light of his remarkable leadership, and ability to draw a country out of catastrophic depression.)
But should you find yourself engaging someone in this particular argument, be sure to inform them their laundry list just got shorter.
According to the newest annual report submitted by Planned Parenthood, the organization performed 264,943 abortions in 2005 alone, up 3.9 percent from 2004.
But Douglas Scott, president of Life Decisions International, a Planned Parenthood watchdog group, points out that the abortion business referred only 1,414 pregnant women to adoption agencies in 2004, down more than 20 percent from 2003.
Yet in the 2005-2006 fiscal year (the newest data available), Planned Parenthood reported no referrals to adoption agencies.
"In fact, you will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott said.
It is precisely as we had expected it to be: Planned Parenthood is in the (very lucrative) business of destroying life, and not lifting so much as a finger towards preserving it.
Final Score
===========
PP: 264,943; Babies: 0
WiTricity
Physicists at MIT have discovered a method of transmitting energy without the use of cables or batteries. They have dubbed the concept "WiTricity," as in Wireless-Electricity.
To showcase the new technology, physicist Marin Soljacic powered a 60-watt bulb from 7 feet away (picture, below).
The difficulty with wireless power transmission is, like radio waves, the energy radiates in all directions. The result is a tremendous amount of wasted energy -- and therefore, minimal efficiency.
What Soljacic and his collegues focused on was the development of a method using resonant electromagnetic waves. The principle is quite simple: two objects resonating at the same frequency tend to exchange energy efficiently, while interacting weakly with objects not resonating at the same frequency.
Since the majority of common objects interact weakly with magnetic waves, very little power is lost on unintended targets.
"The fact that magnetic fields interact so weakly with biological organisms is also important for safety considerations," said Soljacic's colleague, MIT physicist Andre Kurs.
In their latest work, the scientists designed two copper coils roughly 20 inches in diameter that were specially designed to resonate together. One was attached to the power source, the other to a light bulb.
Of course, the applications of this cutting-edge technology are numerous. Laptops, MP3 players and cell phones come immediately to mind; no more batteries, no more hassling with cords.
"As long as the laptop is in a room equipped with a source of such wireless power, it would charge automatically, without having to be plugged in," said MIT researcher Peter Fisher, also part of the research team. "In fact, it would not even need a battery to operate inside of such a room."
The researchers demonstrated roughly 40 percent efficiency in power transfer. Kurs told LiveScience they are currently working on improving the efficiency of the power transfer as well as the maximum distance allowed.
"For the moment, we are focusing on power transfers on the order of 100 watts although, in principle, more power could be transferred," he added.
Exciting to think about, is it not? A home with no outlets, and no extension cords -- simply place your lamps, coffee pot, television, microwave and computers wherever you like.
You're online.
To showcase the new technology, physicist Marin Soljacic powered a 60-watt bulb from 7 feet away (picture, below).
The difficulty with wireless power transmission is, like radio waves, the energy radiates in all directions. The result is a tremendous amount of wasted energy -- and therefore, minimal efficiency.
What Soljacic and his collegues focused on was the development of a method using resonant electromagnetic waves. The principle is quite simple: two objects resonating at the same frequency tend to exchange energy efficiently, while interacting weakly with objects not resonating at the same frequency.
Since the majority of common objects interact weakly with magnetic waves, very little power is lost on unintended targets.
"The fact that magnetic fields interact so weakly with biological organisms is also important for safety considerations," said Soljacic's colleague, MIT physicist Andre Kurs.
In their latest work, the scientists designed two copper coils roughly 20 inches in diameter that were specially designed to resonate together. One was attached to the power source, the other to a light bulb.
Of course, the applications of this cutting-edge technology are numerous. Laptops, MP3 players and cell phones come immediately to mind; no more batteries, no more hassling with cords.
"As long as the laptop is in a room equipped with a source of such wireless power, it would charge automatically, without having to be plugged in," said MIT researcher Peter Fisher, also part of the research team. "In fact, it would not even need a battery to operate inside of such a room."
The researchers demonstrated roughly 40 percent efficiency in power transfer. Kurs told LiveScience they are currently working on improving the efficiency of the power transfer as well as the maximum distance allowed.
"For the moment, we are focusing on power transfers on the order of 100 watts although, in principle, more power could be transferred," he added.
Exciting to think about, is it not? A home with no outlets, and no extension cords -- simply place your lamps, coffee pot, television, microwave and computers wherever you like.
You're online.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Condomism
Jennifer Roback Morse has a good piece over at the National Review Online. (It's a few months old, but what the heck...)
In her article, she discusses the pervasive ideology surrounding contraception, and dubs it: Condomism.
It is the belief that, "all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception...[Adherents] believe that we could end world hunger and save the environment, if only we had enough condoms."
Here are a few of the tenets of Condomism:
Morse has her finger on our culture's moral pulse. And the pulse is fading quickly.
In her article, she discusses the pervasive ideology surrounding contraception, and dubs it: Condomism.
It is the belief that, "all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception...[Adherents] believe that we could end world hunger and save the environment, if only we had enough condoms."
Here are a few of the tenets of Condomism:
1. Every person capable of giving meaningful consent is entitled to unlimited sexual activity.
2. All negative consequences of sexual activity can be controlled through the use of contraception. Sexual Transmitted Diseases can be controlled through the use of condoms. The probability of pregnancy can be eliminated through contraception, properly used.
3. No one is required to give birth to a baby, in the event of pregnancy. Abortion, for any reason or no reason, at any time during pregnancy, is an absolute entitlement.
4. Any negative consequences of sexual activity that can not be handled by contraception or abortion are not worth talking about.
Morse has her finger on our culture's moral pulse. And the pulse is fading quickly.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Death of the West
Pat Buchanan was sounding the alarm almost a decade ago. His book Death of the West should be mandatory reading in public high schools across the nation. The subtitle sums it up well: "How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization."
And now this from United Press International:
In his prophetic book, Pat predicted that by 2020 London would be predominantly Muslim.
But what does he know? He's just another right-wing bigot.
And now this from United Press International:
Muhammad is the second most popular name for baby boys in Britain, second only to Jack, and will probably rise to number one by next year, new research reveals. According to The Times newspaper, 5,991 new-born boys received the name last year, spelled 14 different ways. Thomas was third followed by Joshua and Oliver.
[chop]
The reason for the name's increased popularity is thought to be partly because more Muslims are having families. Muhammad Anwar, professor of Ethnic Relations at Warwick University, said "Muslim parents like to have something that shows a link with their religion or with the Prophet [Muhammad]."
In his prophetic book, Pat predicted that by 2020 London would be predominantly Muslim.
But what does he know? He's just another right-wing bigot.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Motu Propio
I first heard the rumor in the Spring of 2006.
I've been waiting on pins and needles ever since -- although, at the same time, growing weary of the various 'insiders' who cry wolf every five weeks or so.
Still, the rumors of Pope Benedict XVI granting universal permission for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass has been ramping-up of late.
In particular, this post from Father Z. seems to suggest we are only days away from getting the official word.
Let the count-down begin.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam
What a shame
Conservatives took a beating November 7, 2006. The Democratic Party, which had only 44 Senate seats going into the election, managed to gain five more for a total of 49. The Republican Party, on the other hand, lost six seats, trading in their 55-vote control of the Senate for only 49 votes. The remaining two seats were won by liberal independents (Lieberman of Connecticut and Sanders of Vermont), both of whom caucus with the Democrats. Their seats can be chalked up along side Feinstein’s and Schumer’s for a final, 51-49 split; Democratic victory.
The Democrats also gained thirty house seats, which means that for the first time since 1994 the Democratic Party has control of both houses of Congress.
Some of those on the center-right frustrated, for instance, with the GOP for their handling of the war, may be wondering what difference it makes.
Well, quite a bit.
If there is one point on which conservatives can rally around the President, it is his judicial nominations; in particular, his appointments of Sam Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Yet, every judicial nominee (District, Appellate, or Supreme Court) has to receive approval from the U.S. Senate. The process is two-fold. First, the nominee must pass the grilling of, and receive a majority vote from, the Senate Judiciary Committee (a panel of 19 Senators from both parties). If approved by the SJC, the candidate is then put to a vote on the Senate floor. Again, he or she must receive a majority vote.
When in the minority (and short of the votes needed to block a candidate from appointment), Democrats are notorious for filibustering the nominee – which delays the process indefinitely, so as to prevent a nominee from ever receiving an up-or-down vote. Cf., Miguel Estrada, Janice Rodgers Brown, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor.
In 2005, it took Republicans threatening to discard the filibuster entirely before Democrats capitulated and allowed judges Owen, Brown and Pryor to receive a Senate floor vote.
But the Democrats are no longer in the minority.
Today Judge Leslie Southwick (nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) was supposed to receive a long-awaited vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It now appears we will have to wait some more, as Chairman Leahy (D-Vermont) just flexed his Majority-Party-Muscle and delayed the vote on Southwick another week.
In addition to filibustering and brutally smearing nominees (cf., Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork; and who could forget the images of Mrs. Sam Alito weeping and having to leave the room as her husband was being tarred and feathered?) another tactic used by Democrats to keep the judiciary stocked with progressives is to simply delay the nomination process of Republican appointees.
Only three Bush nominees have been approved this year, and there are currently five nominees for 13 vacancies. At this pace, the confirmation rate won’t come close to the 15 (liberal) appeals-court nominees quickly shuffled through by a GOP Senate during Bill Clinton’s last two years in office.
Contrast Clarence Thomas’ narrow approval in 1991 -- a vote of 52-48 -- with Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, nominated by Clinton in 1993, received a 96-3 confirmation vote. While we have to fight tooth-and-nail for a Republican appointee like Thomas or Alito, liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer pass congressional hearings with flying colors and without delay.
It’s business as usual in Washington. The Dems fight dirty, while the GOP plays by the rules.
But perhaps most depressing of all is the defeat conservatives suffered on November 7. Had the GOP lost only one less seat, the situation would be far less tragic. Such a seat could have easily been won in the state of Montana, or Virginia, where the Republican candidate lost by only 3,000 (a 0.5% margin) and 9,000 (a 0.38% margin) votes respectively.
Both races could have easily been won. Alas, a few thousand conservatives were too lazy to mail in their ballots.
What a shame.
The Democrats also gained thirty house seats, which means that for the first time since 1994 the Democratic Party has control of both houses of Congress.
Some of those on the center-right frustrated, for instance, with the GOP for their handling of the war, may be wondering what difference it makes.
Well, quite a bit.
If there is one point on which conservatives can rally around the President, it is his judicial nominations; in particular, his appointments of Sam Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Yet, every judicial nominee (District, Appellate, or Supreme Court) has to receive approval from the U.S. Senate. The process is two-fold. First, the nominee must pass the grilling of, and receive a majority vote from, the Senate Judiciary Committee (a panel of 19 Senators from both parties). If approved by the SJC, the candidate is then put to a vote on the Senate floor. Again, he or she must receive a majority vote.
When in the minority (and short of the votes needed to block a candidate from appointment), Democrats are notorious for filibustering the nominee – which delays the process indefinitely, so as to prevent a nominee from ever receiving an up-or-down vote. Cf., Miguel Estrada, Janice Rodgers Brown, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor.
In 2005, it took Republicans threatening to discard the filibuster entirely before Democrats capitulated and allowed judges Owen, Brown and Pryor to receive a Senate floor vote.
But the Democrats are no longer in the minority.
Today Judge Leslie Southwick (nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) was supposed to receive a long-awaited vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It now appears we will have to wait some more, as Chairman Leahy (D-Vermont) just flexed his Majority-Party-Muscle and delayed the vote on Southwick another week.
In addition to filibustering and brutally smearing nominees (cf., Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork; and who could forget the images of Mrs. Sam Alito weeping and having to leave the room as her husband was being tarred and feathered?) another tactic used by Democrats to keep the judiciary stocked with progressives is to simply delay the nomination process of Republican appointees.
Only three Bush nominees have been approved this year, and there are currently five nominees for 13 vacancies. At this pace, the confirmation rate won’t come close to the 15 (liberal) appeals-court nominees quickly shuffled through by a GOP Senate during Bill Clinton’s last two years in office.
Contrast Clarence Thomas’ narrow approval in 1991 -- a vote of 52-48 -- with Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, nominated by Clinton in 1993, received a 96-3 confirmation vote. While we have to fight tooth-and-nail for a Republican appointee like Thomas or Alito, liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer pass congressional hearings with flying colors and without delay.
It’s business as usual in Washington. The Dems fight dirty, while the GOP plays by the rules.
But perhaps most depressing of all is the defeat conservatives suffered on November 7. Had the GOP lost only one less seat, the situation would be far less tragic. Such a seat could have easily been won in the state of Montana, or Virginia, where the Republican candidate lost by only 3,000 (a 0.5% margin) and 9,000 (a 0.38% margin) votes respectively.
Both races could have easily been won. Alas, a few thousand conservatives were too lazy to mail in their ballots.
What a shame.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Here, Sir, the Judges rule
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act yesterday, which had passed as law in Michigan state. The law would have banned the late-term abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction (D&X). There are two variants of this procedure.
The first, commonly known as "partial-birth abortion," is performed by delivering the baby intact, up to the mid-section. With the head still in the mother, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors and forces them into the base of the child's skull. The surgeon then removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this newly formed hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the head collapsed, he delivers the dead baby.
The second variant of a D&X procedure involves the doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserting grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the pre-born child. The doctor grips a fetal part (arm or leg) with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes.
Now the reason I describe (using language borrowed almost verbatim from that used by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart) and distinguish between the two procedures (performed on babies of same gestational age), is because the 6th Circuit Court ruled the Michigan law unconstitutional precisely because it banned both forms of D&X, and not just one form -- as was the case of the Supreme Court's recent decision (Gonzales v. Carhart; April 18, 2007) which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban passed by Congress.
To ban D&X entirely would be, according to the three-judge panel in Cincinnati, to place an "undue burden" on the woman.
(Never mind the "undue burden" dismemberment causes a healthy 24 week unborn baby.)
The Legal Birth Definition Act was approved by the (Republican controlled) Michigan Legislature in June 2004. It had also gathered the support of some 460,000 Michiganians who provided their signatures as a way to get around the veto of Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
No matter. Three judges see the Act as a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. All was in vain.
But they console us, saying, "We certainly are reluctant to interfere with a statute that represents the will of the elected representatives of the people of Michigan, and do not do so lightly." (Northland Family v. Cox, June 4, 2007)
Sure, sure.
We understand. These honorable statesmen, while sympathetic to the wishes of the people, are nonetheless compelled by a moral imperitive to "reluctant[ly]...interfere." They are urged on, fulfilling the trying -- but noble -- office of judge-ship, to uphold a woman's right to dismember her unborn child, as defined in the Constitution.
We are a government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.
The first, commonly known as "partial-birth abortion," is performed by delivering the baby intact, up to the mid-section. With the head still in the mother, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors and forces them into the base of the child's skull. The surgeon then removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this newly formed hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the head collapsed, he delivers the dead baby.
The second variant of a D&X procedure involves the doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserting grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the pre-born child. The doctor grips a fetal part (arm or leg) with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes.
Now the reason I describe (using language borrowed almost verbatim from that used by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart) and distinguish between the two procedures (performed on babies of same gestational age), is because the 6th Circuit Court ruled the Michigan law unconstitutional precisely because it banned both forms of D&X, and not just one form -- as was the case of the Supreme Court's recent decision (Gonzales v. Carhart; April 18, 2007) which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban passed by Congress.
To ban D&X entirely would be, according to the three-judge panel in Cincinnati, to place an "undue burden" on the woman.
(Never mind the "undue burden" dismemberment causes a healthy 24 week unborn baby.)
The Legal Birth Definition Act was approved by the (Republican controlled) Michigan Legislature in June 2004. It had also gathered the support of some 460,000 Michiganians who provided their signatures as a way to get around the veto of Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
No matter. Three judges see the Act as a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. All was in vain.
But they console us, saying, "We certainly are reluctant to interfere with a statute that represents the will of the elected representatives of the people of Michigan, and do not do so lightly." (Northland Family v. Cox, June 4, 2007)
Sure, sure.
We understand. These honorable statesmen, while sympathetic to the wishes of the people, are nonetheless compelled by a moral imperitive to "reluctant[ly]...interfere." They are urged on, fulfilling the trying -- but noble -- office of judge-ship, to uphold a woman's right to dismember her unborn child, as defined in the Constitution.
We are a government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Genocide Awareness Project -- on the air
Visually exposing the injustice of abortion for two days and to 10,000 students at Western Washington University was not the only mass-media venue available to CBR on May 23rd and 24th. Darius Hardwick, Director of CBR Northwest, managed to land a half-hour radio interview with Debbie Chavez on Bellingham's KGMI (AM 790).
This happened to be Darius' radio debut -- which, from simply tuning in to the show, is a bit of trivia you would likely have missed.
I invite you to listen as he explains the reasoning behind why we use the horrible photos, and why we came to Western.
Part 1 (12 minutes)
Part 2 (12 minutes)
This happened to be Darius' radio debut -- which, from simply tuning in to the show, is a bit of trivia you would likely have missed.
I invite you to listen as he explains the reasoning behind why we use the horrible photos, and why we came to Western.
Part 1 (12 minutes)
Part 2 (12 minutes)
Sunday, June 3, 2007
"Remember Man that you are dust..."
Watch this.
"When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant and which know me not, I am frightened and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now rather than then. Who has put me here? By whose order and direction have this place and time been allotted to me?" -Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
"When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant and which know me not, I am frightened and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now rather than then. Who has put me here? By whose order and direction have this place and time been allotted to me?" -Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Achitecture done right; thankfully not Wright
One of the more influential Western architects, Frank Lloyd Wright has left behind a legacy of insipid, uninspiring, flat structures (picture, below). Indeed, when it comes to the style of Wright, the only thing left to marvel at is the boundless adoration and approval his work enjoyed.
(I suspect there is more to the veneration of modernism than simply an American desire to be in vogue. But that is for another day, and another post.)
I wish here to contrast the banality of Wright with the beauty of authentic design.
Take, for example, Duncan G. Stroik Architecture, LLC, based out of Indiana.
See for yourself the transforming power of human desire, effort and creativity at its finest.
(I suspect there is more to the veneration of modernism than simply an American desire to be in vogue. But that is for another day, and another post.)
I wish here to contrast the banality of Wright with the beauty of authentic design.
Take, for example, Duncan G. Stroik Architecture, LLC, based out of Indiana.
See for yourself the transforming power of human desire, effort and creativity at its finest.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Rhode Island Catholic
In 2005, the Diocese of Providence, RI was blessed to receive a new pastor: Bishop Thomas J. Tobin. Consistent with the growing trend of new bishops and priests, Tobin (59) is concerned more with the salvation of souls than with promoting scandal or wasting millions (from the collection basket) on modern monstrosities.
For instance, yesterday Tobin announced a complete revamping of the diocesan paper. To get an idea of what sort of changes His Excellency is making, contrast the new name of the paper with its old name. Starting today, The Providence Visitor will be the Rhode Island Catholic. Commenting on why the need for a new name, Tobin quipped that "Visitor" sounded more like a tourist guide than a Catholic publication.
And let there be no doubt -- this paper is no tourist guide.
An editorial in today's paper states, “We will not print opinions that are in contradiction of church teaching — any more than a newspaper for, say, Greenpeace would print a letter in support of the slaughter of whales.”
With a circulation of about 30,000, Catholics throughout the diocese also get to read the bishop's column titled "Without a Doubt," which this week slams Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani for his support of abortion rights.
You can read the column in full here.
Allow me to post a few excerpts:
"I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.
"Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.
[chop]
"Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years:
"“I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”
"Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others.”
[chop]
"Rudy’s defection from the Catholic Faith on this moral issue is not unique, of course. Catholic politicians of both parties, nationwide, have followed a similar path in abandoning the Faith for the sake of political expediency: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden come quickly to mind. And on a local level, of course, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Senator Jack Reed. How these intelligent men and women will someday stand before the judgment seat of God and explain why they legitimized the death of countless innocent children in the sin of abortion is beyond me. (But God, really, I was personally opposed to it, but just couldn’t do anything about it.”)
"Oh well, as you can see by now, I won’t be attending the fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani. If Rudy wants to see me, he’ll have to arrange an appointment at my office. We’ll talk about his position on abortion. And if he wants a photo, it will cost him $1,500 as a donation for the pro-life work of the Church."
Now if only we could get Archbishop Brunette to do the same with our very own Catholic Regress.
For instance, yesterday Tobin announced a complete revamping of the diocesan paper. To get an idea of what sort of changes His Excellency is making, contrast the new name of the paper with its old name. Starting today, The Providence Visitor will be the Rhode Island Catholic. Commenting on why the need for a new name, Tobin quipped that "Visitor" sounded more like a tourist guide than a Catholic publication.
And let there be no doubt -- this paper is no tourist guide.
An editorial in today's paper states, “We will not print opinions that are in contradiction of church teaching — any more than a newspaper for, say, Greenpeace would print a letter in support of the slaughter of whales.”
With a circulation of about 30,000, Catholics throughout the diocese also get to read the bishop's column titled "Without a Doubt," which this week slams Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani for his support of abortion rights.
You can read the column in full here.
Allow me to post a few excerpts:
"I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.
"Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.
[chop]
"Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years:
"“I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”
"Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others.”
[chop]
"Rudy’s defection from the Catholic Faith on this moral issue is not unique, of course. Catholic politicians of both parties, nationwide, have followed a similar path in abandoning the Faith for the sake of political expediency: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden come quickly to mind. And on a local level, of course, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Senator Jack Reed. How these intelligent men and women will someday stand before the judgment seat of God and explain why they legitimized the death of countless innocent children in the sin of abortion is beyond me. (But God, really, I was personally opposed to it, but just couldn’t do anything about it.”)
"Oh well, as you can see by now, I won’t be attending the fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani. If Rudy wants to see me, he’ll have to arrange an appointment at my office. We’ll talk about his position on abortion. And if he wants a photo, it will cost him $1,500 as a donation for the pro-life work of the Church."
Now if only we could get Archbishop Brunette to do the same with our very own Catholic Regress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)