Why filibuster? - Page 2

TragicMonkey · 2nd February 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 2nd February 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Isn't Alito Catholic?

I think so. Why?

Quote:

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 · 2nd February 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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.

Quote:

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 · 2nd February 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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 · 2nd February 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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 · 2nd February 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

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 · 2nd February 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Is it? Since when is Catholicism against capital punishment?

Quote:

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/se...enalty_en.html

Quote:

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 · 2nd February 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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 · 2nd February 2006, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

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 · 2nd February 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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 · 2nd February 2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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 · 2nd February 2006, 06:04 PM

"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 · 2nd February 2006, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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 · 2nd February 2006, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Vagabond

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 · 3rd February 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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

Iran. Durr.

2nd February 2006, 10:44 AM	#41
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

2nd February 2006, 12:26 PM	#42
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Isn't Alito Catholic? I think so. Why? Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

2nd February 2006, 01:37 PM	#43
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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. Quote: 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.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

2nd February 2006, 02:01 PM	#44
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey 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?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

2nd February 2006, 02:15 PM	#45
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Originally Posted by Mycroft 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.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

2nd February 2006, 02:21 PM	#46
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295	Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep 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.
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295

2nd February 2006, 02:24 PM	#47
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Mycroft Is it? Since when is Catholicism against capital punishment? Quote: 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/se...enalty_en.html Quote: 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.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

2nd February 2006, 03:33 PM	#48
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 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.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

2nd February 2006, 05:11 PM	#49
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep 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.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

2nd February 2006, 05:30 PM	#50
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Mycroft Ironic, considering their religion begins with capital punishment. And that they applied it to other people for centuries. But nobody accuses religions of consistency.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

2nd February 2006, 05:38 PM	#51
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey 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?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

2nd February 2006, 06:04 PM	#52
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	"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.

2nd February 2006, 06:09 PM	#53
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Mycroft 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?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

2nd February 2006, 08:13 PM	#54
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,408	Originally Posted by Vagabond 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...
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

3rd February 2006, 01:20 PM	#55
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Originally Posted by Mycroft If religions didn't evolve, where would we be? Iran. Durr.
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."