Two stories floated side by side at CNN:
Senators Urge [Sandra Day] O’Connor To Reconsider Retirement
[William] Rehnquist Silences Retirement Speculation
In the first story, four notoriously pro-abortion senators (although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has a "mixed record" despite her EMILY List recommendation) have urged Justice O’Connor not to retire, piously asserting that "You possess moderation, dignity and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence" and urging that President Bush name her as Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement:
"In a copy of the letter obtained by CNN, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, urged the 75-year-old jurist to return to the court as the chief justice of the United States to avoid what could be a messy confirmation fight over her successor.
"’As United States senators with the constitutional responsibility of "advice and consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as chief justice,’ the letter said."
Uh huh. And had John Kerry won election in 2004 would these senators still recommend that O’Connor be named Chief Justice or would they be clamoring for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has apparently tired of the Retirement Watch surrounding him lately and has stated that, despite health difficulties, he intends to continue in office as long as he can:
"’I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,’ Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. ‘I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.’"
Point of protocol: As a side note, and to sound off on a pet peeve of mine, the Chief Justice’s title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." It is Chief Justice of the United States.
<Commercial>Get Catholic Answers’ booklet Supreme Injustice: The Looming Disaster in America’s Highest Court written by your gracious blog host, Jimmy Akin.</commercial>
So apparently the Senators want O’Connor to stay on the Court and Rhenquist to resign. Unfortunately for them, O’Connor wants to resign and Rhenquist is staying on.
Some years back (about five, really), some wag looked at all the 5-4 decisions and concluded that “the Constitution is whatever Sandy O’Connor says it is.”
I’ll be glad to rid of that kind of capriciousness.
Aside: keep in mind that having nine justices is just a “small tee” tradition. We’ve had more, we’ve had less. If I were the Pres, I’d either not appoint anyone, or I’d appoint about six or seven… hey, it’s his second term, what’s he got to lose?
Federal law sets the number of justices. Bush can’t change the number on his own.
The publication of this new pamphlet (Supreme Injustice) confirms that Catholic Answers has moved from being an apostolate dedicated to explaining and defending what the Church teaches to being a lobbying group that disseminates the personal political views of its staff. Please explain how the theory of consitutional interpretation and the politics of the Supreme Court is related to Catholic Answers Mission Statement, reproduced below:
Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith. We explain Catholic truth, equip the faithful to live fully the sacramental life, and assist them in spreading the Good News.
The Church has no position regarding whether the how the U.S. Constitution should be interpeted, so how can the publication of this tract “bring the fullness of Catholic truth to the world”? Now that Catholic Answers has become transparently political, I wonder if I can trust any of the more doctrinal writings to present only what the Church teaches, not the personal views of Karl Keating et al. I used to think pretty highly of Catholic Answers, but I have lost a lot of respect for the organization over the past year.
From what I’ve heard Chief Justice O’conner does not possess moderation when it comes to the topic of abortion which the Church is firmly against.
Oh, and to Decker2003. This is http://www.JIMMYAKIN.org. not http://www.catholic.com. Are you suggesting that Mr Akin not express his own opinions on his own website?
The Church has no position regarding whether the how the U.S. Constitution should be interpeted…
Boy, that’s a surprise to me. I thought the Church taught that human law must be in conformity with God’s law.
Was I misinformed?
Since the Supreme Court seems set on finding the “right” to wrongs ranging from killing babies, killing your wife (so long as she can’t complain herself) and I have little doubt they’ll find a right to never hear of religon if given the chance, it’s important.
Although I want President Bush to get a chance to pick new justices, as Catholics we can say that Chief Justice Rehnquist staying on is, in a similar way to Pope John Paul II, giving dignity to the sick and elderly. They have value! Let’s get that message out there.
When an 80-year-old man with thyroid cancer says he wants to “put to rest any rumors of his retiremement”, I’m not sure what, realistically speaking, we are to make of that. Much as we respect his great contributions to jurisprudence.
JIMMY: preview still takes us to some other page. I know type pad fixed all sorts of things that weren’t broke last week.
Wouldn’t it be neat if Rehnquist could be one of the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade?
He was one of the original votes against it, wasn’t he?
Billy,
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.
The two no votes were Rehnquist and Byron White (now deceased).
Right now there are only three votes to overturn it – though there are four to kill partial-birth abortion. Replacing O’Connor with an originalist would do the trick on that score.
After that Bush must wait for Ginsberg or Stevens (the two liberal justices most likely to retire) to step down.
Mike,
The booklet, Supreme Injustice, is published by Catholic Answers, not jimmyakin.org. I was commenting on Catholic Answers’ decision to publish a booklet that is far removed from its mission statement.
BillyHW,
Divine law tells us what the law should be, but not what method of interpretation we should use to figure out whether the phrase “commerce among the states” includes activities that occur in one state but that affect activities in other states. If 9 originalist justices came to the unanimous conclusion that the U.S. Constitution, interpreted according to its original meaning, prohibits the federal government from establishing Catholicism as the official religion of the United States, that result would be contrary to divine law and Church teaching, which say that the state has the duty to honor God and promote the truth. It’s the result that’s the problem, not the method of interpretation that justices use to get to the result. So, we shouldn’t imply that there’s a single Catholic position on the method of INTERPRETATION, only that there’s a Catholic position on certain ISSUES.
Decker2003: Catholic Answers isn’t bound by its own mission statement, nor by your interpretation of it.
Justices are also bound by the natural law. An innocent person’s natural law right to life cannot be abrogated by penumbras emanating from a human document. So in this case a Catholic or anyone of goodwill will be required to take an originalist position. On other matters, a non-originalist position taken by justices on the supreme court results in a de facto tyranny by unelected officials. I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church has some pretty strong things to say against tyrannies that violate the human rights of its people.
If 9 originalist justices came to the unanimous conclusion that the U.S. Constitution, interpreted according to its original meaning, prohibits the federal government from establishing Catholicism as the official religion of the United States, that result would be contrary to divine law and Church teaching, which say that the state has the duty to honor God and promote the truth.
Wow, this is perhaps the silliest thing ever written on JimmyAkin.org. Catholicism requires that the the state impose Catholicism? What am I to make of this then:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1738.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1738.htm
You know, maybe we could have brought the abortion holocaust (250,000,000 dead babies worldwide and counting) to an end ages ago if Catholics didn’t try to eat their own whenever one of us tries to do something real and practical to bring this hideous and second greatest evil the world has ever known to an end by screaming and ranting about stupid and silly technicalities.
Is Supreme Injustice one of the Secret Projects?
BillyHW,
Of course Catholic Answers is free to amend or even abandon its Mission Statement at any time. My point is simply that they have. They are no longer limiting themselves to issues where the Church has given a definitive answer, and hence there is no room for debate among those who recognize that the Church speaks with divine authority in matters of faith and morals, but are now delving into areas where there is legitimate room for disagreement among the faithful. They are no longer presenting Catholic Answers, but merely the opionions of certain Catholics.
The point about originalism is simply that Church teaching does not require one to adopt originalism as a method of interpretation. For the first one hundred years of the nation, the U.S. Constitution clearly permitted slavery. Was originalism also required then?
Although it is merely a side issue, I do want to note that you have misinterpreted my statement about establishing Catholicism as the official religion of the U.S. I did not say “and require everyone to practice Catholicism.” The passage of the catechism refers to the latter, not the former. As for the duty of the state to acknowledge God, this article discusses the issue quite well, with reference to a large number of authoritative sources, including the relevant statements of Vatican II.
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html
Was originalism also required then?
No, not when originalism is in conflict with the natural law. But when it is not in conflict with the natural law, it is required, since anything else would mean an illegal (and don’t forget, Catholics must obey the civil law when not in conflict with God’s law) usurpation of powers and the installation of a de facto tyranny on a populace.
How exactly is that a legitimate Catholic opinion?