In a speech last week titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association that the court has no place acting as a “judge moralist” in issues better left to the people. Since judges aren’t qualified—or constitutionally authorized—to set moral standards, he argued, the people should decide what’s morally acceptable.
But does Scalia, whose quarter-century on the bench has marked him as the court’s moral scold for his finger-wagging views on social issues, have a coherent understanding of what it means to say something is or isn’t moral, and of morality’s proper role in the law?
Scalia would have you believe it’s liberal, pro-gay sympathizers who are imposing their own brand of moral laxity on the nation, and unconstitutionally using the courts to do it. His angry dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case ending sodomy bans—decided 10 years ago this week—blasted the court for embracing “a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [which is] directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
Just after 11 last Sunday morning at Old First Reformed Church in Brooklyn, the Rev. Dr. Daniel Meeter is starting the Sunday service as he always does. He runs through the opening salutation and the collect for the day, and then he welcomes everyone to church as he always does, introducing Old First “as a community of Jesus in Park Slope where we welcome people of every race, ethnicity and orientation to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.”
The congregation—some eighty strong on this sunny but cold February morning—is the usual mix of Park Slope churchgoing types: a smattering of journalists, a few artists, a handful of old ladies, some rambunctious children. Continue reading →
Judging by the number of phrases that relate to the human body – and there are more of them than of virtually any other topic – we may be just a touch just self-centered. Here’s a select list, with their meanings and origins:
A group of Arizona Republicans are eager to pass House Bill 2467 which would require all public high school graduates to recite the following oath in order to graduate:
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
But what if you don’t believe in God? Too bad. Either ask something you don’t believe in to help you so you can graduate, or you lie. Which is creepy and wrong.
The Supreme Court justice was visiting Princeton University on Monday to discuss his latest book when a college freshman, who identifies as gay, asked Scalia about the comparison he has drawn between laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia said in response to the question, according to The Daily Princetonian. “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.”
Scalia told Princeton student Duncan Hosie that he is not equating sodomy with bestiality or murder, but drawing parallels between the bans.
The origins of the Cellitine sisters and their beneficial ministry date back to late 13th-century Cologne, when the nuns devoted themselves to the “care of the sick, the weak and the poor.”
Their original mission has expanded into a corporation encompassing 16 nursing homes and 10 hospitals. The only problem is that care is precisely what has been lacking there recently. Wanting nothing to do with a possible early termination of a pregnancy, doctors working for the Cellitines turned away a woman who was seeking help shortly before Christmas, despite the strong suspicion that she had been raped. Continue reading →
Prison guard Jeremy Stodghill filed the lawsuit after his wife, Lori, died of a heart attack at St Thomas More hospital in Canon City, Colorado, along with her unborn twin boys in 2006.
The heavily pregnant 31-year-old was brought into the hospital’s emergency room on New Year’s Day, vomiting and with shortness of breath.
By the time Mr Stodghill parked his car and returned to the ER, she’d lost consciousness. Less than an hour later, she suffered a fatal heart attack and her twins died with her, having been left inside her womb.
But Mr Stodghill is arguing the twins could have been saved if doctors had performed a perimortem Cesarean section.
Despite being paged by the hospital, the on-call obstetrician, Dr Pelham Staples, who was also Lori’s personal obstetrician, never arrived. Mr Stodghill recalls speaking to him on the phone.