Smelling A Mouse, Or: Let’s Talk About “Humble”

I support Dirty Harry’s appointment.

 

So, we are told that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is “mind-blowingly intelligent” and “humble”. 

Perhaps I should address a couple of issues that humble, mind-blowingly intelligent people should actually have figured out for themselves.

The first one is that no Catholic, no matter how mind-blowingly intelligent, can think that he can reshape Catholic doctrine. Smart or dumb, a Catholic must believe everything that the Church believes and profess everything that the Church professes. This means, of course, not the blind following of what Francis, or some leftist theologian of questionable virility, states, because they are not the Church. It means, on the contrary, the unconditional adherence to the Depositum Fidei.  If this is not understood, no discussion is possible, because you can’t talk Catholicism with a person who does not agree with you on the simple fact of what it means to be a Catholic.

The second, which follows straight from the first, is that a Catholic is in favour of Capital Punishment, full stop. Again, no mind-blowing intelligence is necessary to understand this, but humbleness certainly is.

Amy Coney Barrett is, unless I have been reading fake news, on record with being personally opposed to Capital Punishment. This means that either the mind-blowing intelligence or the humbleness are just not there. She is also not twenty anymore, and as a professed Catholic with a high degree of education, and accustomed to the legal and historic evisceration of the issues she has to deal with, you would expect that she actually knows what the stance of the Church on Capital Punishment is.

I don’t want to say that I smell a rat here, and I will say in her defence that she has refused to stand in the way of capital punishment in her professional capacity. However, I would say that I certainly smell a mouse.

Still, politics is, as Giulio Andreotti used to say, “the art of the Possible”. Trump needs a fast appointment, and he does not want to offer the flank to virtue-signalling, closeted anti-Trumpers, who would ask for nothing better than show the nation their wonderful independence of mind, whilst kow-towing to the mob and looking good in their wealthy Washington circles.

We will know tomorrow. I think it will be Coney Barrett.

I’d have preferred the judge version of Clint Eastwood, or Tom Cotton, or Ted Cruz. But I honestly don’t think any Clint Eastwood-esque judge would make it to Justice before the elections, so this is where we are.

 

 

 

 

Posted on September 25, 2020, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. Yes, something is better than nothing. Trumps needs a win even if a little smelly.

  2. I hate to sound cynical but perhaps ACB uses the mainstream understanding of VII “Catholic ism” and capital punishment as cover. That is, she uses the current popular distortion of Catholic teaching on cp to give her cover in the judicial politics realm – “see, I can be like JFK and ignore my Catholicism in my judicial role…” (then goes on to uphold cp judicially. Gives some political cover in future confirmation fights, especially helpful in ruling in cases against abortion, I’m ruling on originalism principles, not RC).

    • I hope this is the case. I also agree that it makes sense for her to refuse to take any stance, during the hearings, on Catholicism, Death Penalty, abortion, or the like.

  3. If you mean Barrett’s 90s paper on death penalty, then there is no attempt to “reshape Catholic doctrine”. Quite opposite, she shows there docility towards Catholic doctrine as expressed in magisterium of the reigning Pope (John Paul II) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Isn’t this normally expected from a Catholic? I never heard terms “leftist” or “questionable virility” applied to the late Pontiff, but the Catechism promulgated by him was very restrictive about death penalty already before the “update” by Francis.

  4. Copied from an email I received from American Family Association of Pennsylvania.

    No mention of Capital Punishment.

    Here it is:

    Synopsis: President Trump must nominate a Supreme Court Justice that reflects his pro-life credentials – one who does not view the US Constitution as a living document, subject to changes in interpretation as society changes, but one who views its words through the eyes of the writers of the document. Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills that description perfectly.

    Share on Social Media: Facebook and Twitter

    AFA of PA ACTION ALERT

    September 24, 2020

    Issue

    Filling the Ginsburg Seat on the US Supreme Court

    Details

    Democrats are saying the Senate MUST wait to confirm the next Justice of the US Supreme Court, but there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a choice be made after an upcoming Presidential election. They’re saying there’s not enough time to confirm a hearing this close to the election. However, did you know:

    That timeline will be almost a week longer than the confirmation process took for Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. That was 24 days in September, nomination to confirmation.

    We can confirm a nominee with as little as 47 votes because there is a difference between a “No” Vote and simply “Not Voting.
    Our next Supreme Court nominee will not be confirmed by a majority of Senators, but by a majority of Senators voting, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking any ties. Therefore, if 100 Senators vote, a majority is 51. If 94 Senators vote, a majority is 47.

    There is also no doubt that the best choice President Trump can make from his short list of potential nominees is Amy Coney Barrett. She was confirmed in 2017 to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. As a long-time law professor at Notre Dame, her judicial philosophy is well known from her extensive writings on the role of the judiciary, precedent, and judicial intrusion into legislative affairs. dissented against Planned Parenthood in their challenge to two Indiana laws (1) preventing eugenics abortions and (2) requiring that a fetus must be buried or cremated. Her record and writings evidence that she would be a solid constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. Moreover, she has been through the fire of a highly contested confirmation battle which left her opponents in the Senate discredited for attacking her Christian faith. She was confirmed in 2017 with the votes of all Republicans and three Democrats.

    Barrett believes Supreme Court Justices should adhere to the Rule of Law and not impose their political preferences through rulings.
    Barrett believes Justices must resist the temptation to impose their policy preferences and must simply apply the Constitution.
    Barrett says Roe was created by “Judicial Fiat,” saying Roe is not settled by society, and therefore, may be reversed.
    Barrett understands that courts have limited power and cannot exceed their interpretative authority.
    Barrett believes judges’ duty is to follow text of Constitution over contrary court precedent.
    She believes life begins at conception
    She opposed Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage in health care plans
    She says church prohibitions on abortion are absolute.
    Barrett criticized court creation of rights for non-citizens.
    She criticized Chief Justice John Roberts on his Obamacare decision
    She says the intent of Congress and the text of the law do not require that “physiological males who identify as females’ be permitted in female restrooms.
    Action Steps

    Ask President Trump to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

    • I believe they would not mention her stance on capital Punishment.

      People favourable to her will not mention it, because it’s embarrassing.

      People opposed to her will not mention it, because it’s counterproductive.

      Search a bit on the Internet and you will find the issue: she is opposed, but she did not let her personal opinion be in the way of the application of the law when she was in the position to oppose, or not, a death sentence.

    • Hello Mundy, Thank you for your response and comments.

  5. JPII allowed for such positions to be considered “Catholic” by his example. His official formulation allowed individuals to assume CP is illicit, and can be opposed by Catholics. I know several faithful Catholics who still use JPII’s line of thinking. Its an insidious error…

  6. Were it not for Capital Punishment, mankind could not be saved.

  7. Personally I do lament selecting candidates for SCOTUS based on anatomy, sex, or race. We should want the most brilliant legal mind, period. The truth is we hardly know what to expect of these justices, some of them cloak their opinion on things extremely well and poor selections are made, Justice Roberts stands out and Kavanaugh was a recent disappointment. You don’t know who you’ve got until they are in the thick of it.

  8. Sorry, a brilliant legal mind can only get you so far, we should want a strict Constitutionalist as well. Without both you get mediocrity and political operatives.

  9. She is a Mason. That should tell you everything you need to know.

    • Hi Adam,
      I have followed the link, but the only thing I can see is unsubstantiated allegation about her freemasonry? I am worried about her pro-lockdown stance, but I still can’t see freemasonry. Or am I missing something?

  10. Why do you believe anything reported in the mainstream media?

%d bloggers like this: