What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Resubscribed because Kim Davis refused to accept my original post.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
unofan - you may be interested in this web blog.
Click to expand...

Why do you think cannon law matters in this situation?

As it appears to me, that she is exercising her religion on behalf of the government, she is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, and the establishment clause. In other words, the the government can't use religion as a reason to do or not to do something.

I'm not sure how one argues around that.
 
alfablue said:
Why do you think cannon law matters in this situation?

As it appears to me, that she is exercising her religion on behalf of the government, she is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, and the establishment clause. In other words, the the government can't use religion as a reason to do or not to do something.

I'm not sure how one argues around that.
Click to expand...

One n. Canon. But with you a lawyer, i figured you'd be interested. Guess I was wrong.
 
joecct said:
One n. Canon. But with you a lawyer, i figured you'd be interested. Guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, the Obama administration also did away with torture, so what that author did to logic in that article is now essentially illegal.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
One n. Canon. But with you a lawyer, i figured you'd be interested. Guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, and the hypocritical argument may be interesting, but I also don't find it applicable.

I could care less of her hypocrisy, especially in the eyes of her religion. In the end, I'm not the one who will judge that- that's up to her God. All I see is someone trying to force the government to take sides in religion or not. The law clearly says not, and has for the entity of the current Constitution and Bill of Rights. In this case, you are right, I don't find this argument interesting at all.

If anything, arguing cannon law for this case is a distraction of what is applicable. The SCOTUS has said that states may not discriminate of what two people get married relative to the sex of the two who are entering this consented contract. A government official may not use religion to apply their individual will onto that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

As far as the Kim Davis ordeal goes I think too many are losing sight of the only thing that really matters: She took an oath, and she is not living up to it.

She swears to "her God" that she will do what the law of her county states. Her county must also follow the laws of the land. No where in the oath is there any allowance for any sort of qualification on what tasks she will perform, and certainly NOT any qualification based on religion, which in and of itself would be unconstitutional language. She absolutely CANNOT refuse to issue marriage licenses simply because of the gender of one or both of the applicants. This is now the law. She took an oath to follow the law.

If she doesn't agree with any of this because of her religious beliefs she must resign. Based on the wording the Supreme Court's ruling and the construction of the legal oath she swore to, this is black letter law. I happen to believe she doesn't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on. There is no doubt she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And God help us all if we ever become a nation of something other than laws.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Sounds like she's going to be released from jail today.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

ShirtlessBob said:
Question remains, will she do her job, or go back to being a doosh?
Click to expand...
Is that even a question? She'll be doing the martyr tour and then going back to the job she inherited from her mother and harassing the employees under her.
 
joecct said:
unofan - you may be interested in this web blog.
Click to expand...

While interesting, it probably won't make it into my regular rotation of reading material. I'm a lapsed Catholic for many reasons, and while the history of the governance of the Church is interesting in and of itself, it doesn't really apply to my actual profession anymore than Sharia or Talmudic laws do.

To the extent you may be bringing it up because of the Kim Davis situation, his entire post kind of misses the point, because Ms. Davis is not Catholic and canon law does not matter to her or the U.S. government. As an intellectual exercise positing how a good Catholic should handle the situation, well ok, but then his other posts defending the death penalty really give me pause. Having met numerous priests and Jesuits in my day, the pro-death penalty ones are true outliers given the Church's staunch sanctity of life message. I'm not saying it's impossible to be a Catholic priest who supports the death penalty, but it's as rare as a pro-union Republican.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
While interesting, it probably won't make it into my regular rotation of reading material. I'm a lapsed Catholic for many reasons, and while the history of the governance of the Church is interesting in and of itself, it doesn't really apply to my actual profession anymore than Sharia or Talmudic laws do.
Click to expand...

As a Failed to Launch Catholic (I can't really be lapsed if I was never unlapsed) with a similar turn of mind on many issues, I recommend skimming a little of the history of canon law. I find it fascinating. Contemporary law is so intertwined with utilitarian theory as to be almost unconscious, and looking at law that comes from a completely different inspiration is IMHO a bracing experience that also brings a new perspective to our own unexamined justifications and aims both in law and society as a whole.

The again I'm a frustrated Medievalist, so YMMV. :)
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
As a Failed to Launch Catholic (I can't really be lapsed if I was never unlapsed) with a similar turn of mind on many issues, I recommend skimming a little of the history of canon law. I find it fascinating. Contemporary law is so intertwined with utilitarian theory as to be almost unconscious, and looking at law that comes from a completely different inspiration is IMHO a bracing experience that also brings a new perspective to our own unexamined justifications and aims both in law and society as a whole).

The again I'm a frustrated Medievalist, so YMMV. :)
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of the rack as a means of information gathering? :)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
So you're in favor of the rack as a means of information gathering? :)
Click to expand...

Depends on the rackee...

But remember, torture is never about information gathering. It's about getting the answer you've pre-selected. The tortured don't tell the truth, they just keep throwing stuff out there hoping they find the one that will make you stop. That's what the real life monsters never understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top