I've written here before about Steve Smith's stunningly good Law's Quandary (Harvard, 2004). Everyone doing legal theory should read the book and ponder its theses. I mention the book again now because those interested in hearing it put in critical context will want to come to CUA's Columbus School of Law on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. There and then Professor Smith's achievement will be honored with a day-long symposium on the book. Joining Professor Smith in dialogue about law's metaphysics will be Joseph Vining (University of Michigan Law School), Lloyd Weinreb (Harvard Law School), Patrick Brennan (Villanova School of Law), and Justice Antonin Scalia. For more information on the event and to see how to reserve a seat, please visit the Columbus School of Law website and click on "The Perplexity is Metaphysical."
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Law's Quandary Comes to D.C.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Umbilical-Cord Blood Stem Cells
From a notice by Democrats for Life of America, soliciting support on the following:
H.R. 2520 recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives [buit has not yet passed the Senate].
The bill, better known as, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 is legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL).The bill creates a new federally funded stem cell research program for the scientifically sound collection and inventory of umbilical cord blood. This research has shown promising results. Published studies have shown that cord blood stem cells have the capacity to change into other cells types, which give them the potential to treat many other debilitating conditions such as spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, Diabetes and heart disease. Thousands of patients have been successfully treated with cord blood cells for many diseases including Leukemia and Sickle Cell Anemia.
Tom
WHAT'S NEXT?
Jesuit Magazine Condemns Pro Boxing
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The article in Civilta Cattolica, titled ''The Immorality of
Professional Boxing,'' compared the sport to the bloody gladiator
contests in ancient Rome. It also criticized the business side of
boxing as being equally ruthless.
The magazine provided advance copies of the article, which will appear Saturday.
Boxing is a ''legalized form of attempted murder, in the short or in the long run,'' the magazine said. It also noted that fighters who don't die in the ring often suffer long-term physical and psychological injuries.
The article cited the deaths of hundreds of fighters in the last
century, including Leavander Johnson, who died last month in Las Vegas.
Johnson collapsed on his way to the dressing room after taking a
beating in his IBF lightweight title defense against Jesus Chavez.
Johnson underwent surgery and never came out of a medically induced
coma.
_______________
mp
Dean Roche, Kerry, Bush, and abortion: A Year Later
Time flies. It was just over a year ago (Oct. 11, 2004) that my colleage here at Notre Dame, Dean Mark Roche, published an opinion piece in the New York Times, "Voting our Conscience, not our Religion," in which he wrote that "[h]istory will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery." Dean Roche also emphasized, though, that "politics is the art of the possible," and proposed that, in fact, voting for and electing Senator Kerry was probably a better way to reduce the number of abortions, and also that Democratic policies with respect to a range of issues better reflected and promoted Catholic teachings. The Dean's piece occasioned, of course, a great deal of attention, comment, and discussion in the public square -- and on Mirror of Justice.
On Wednesday, the campus newspaper here at Notre Dame published this essay, "Of Ray Siegfried, Mark Roche, and the child we once were," by Tony Lauinger, reflecting (critically) on Dean Roche's piece and its anniversary in the context of the recent death of Ray Siegfried, a long-time Notre Dame benefactor and trustee. A response, "Focusing on the possible," was published in the same paper yesterday by my colleague, Prof. Don Kommers.
Rick
Some Handy-Dandy (and Biblically Literate) Insults ...
10 Commandments Discussion in AL
Tonight's panel at Cumberland Law School (Birmingham, AL) on 10 Commandments displays was interesting and entertaining as expected. Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice) and Professor Marci Hamilton went at it a few times. There was also a good contribution from Dr. Ron Sider, who I admire as a pioneer of "pro-life progressivism" among evangelicals and a leading proponent of the role of faith-based organizations in combatting poverty. Discussion of the issue has special relevance in Alabama because Roy Moore, the judge who rose to fame by putting up 10 Commandments in his courtroom and (as chief justice) the AL Sup Ct courthouse, is now running for governor (the word seems to be, though, that he's not likely to win the GOP primary).
A couple of notes about the panel. FIrst, no one on it was all that hepped on getting 10 Commandments displays or other government symbols erected. Even though Jay defended their constitutionality, he agreed with my argument that cases about (i) free-exercise rights and (ii) equal participation of religion in school vouchers and other benefits programs are far more important to true religious freedom and vitality in modern America.
Second, Marci spoke quite eloquently against imposing on the conscience of atheists through 10 Commandments displays and other government symbols, and argued that the courts need to prevent such impositions through judicial review under the Establishment Clause (because, she implied, you can't trust legislatures). But she contined to set forth her position that religious conscience should not be constitutionally protected from secular laws under the Free Exercise Clause -- in that case, she says, any protection should come from legislatures, not from courts engaging in judicial review. Although there are ways of distinguishing the two situations, it still seems to me that her position gives far more weight to the conscience of the atheist than to that of the religious believer. I'd argue, by contrast, for giving substantial weight to both. It reminded me of the point that BYU law prof Fred Gedicks once noted: according to the governing law, an atheist student who has to listen to a 30-second prayer at graduation ceremonies suffers an unconstitutional burden under the Establishment Clause (Lee v. Weisman), but (under the Mozert 6th Cir. decision of 1987) a fundamentalist student who has to listen day after day in public school to secular lessons that conflict with his or her faith suffers no constitutional burden under the Free Exercise Clause. Something screwy there.
Tom
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Starr and Dobson on Miers
The national conversation over the Miers nomination is getting curiouser and curiouser. As Steve pointed out earlier, the Bush Administration is heading into some troubled waters by playing the faith card on Miers. Witness Bush's comments yesterday. More striking was a conversation I heard on the Focus on the Family radio program yesterday between James Dobson and Kenneth Starr. I can't find a written transcript, but I wrote down a rough transcript of some key excerpts:
Dobson: Do you believe [Miers] is pro-life and pro-family . . . ?
Starr: [She is] a person of very deep faith. She is an evangelical Christian. Her own faith journey is a very intriguing and revealing one, and that is a story that those in the Christian community should be comforted by. This is someone who as a mature adult -- not the way she was raised so that's the way I am -- this is a mature adult, a professional, who came to a very strong belief and commitment . . . this set of beliefs and committments means she is going to hold fast to traditional values.
Dobson: You are convinced she has a very personal faith in Jesus Christ?
Starr: I do . . . This should be a source I think of great comfort and assurance to people who are in the household of faith around the country.
(You can listen to the full conversation here by clicking on the Oct. 12 broadcast.)
Rob
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
"Deploy the Little Platoons"
This op-ed, "Let's Deploy the Little Platoons: A Conservative Vision of Social Justice," by Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative Party in Great Britain, is worth a read. I blogged a few weeks ago about Santorum's new book, "It Takes a Family: Conservativism and the Common Good," and about his very different vision of justice and society than that espoused by the more libertarian right. In this op-ed, the authors say more about what they characterize as a "conservative" approach to promoting social justice:
In many conservative circles, "social justice" is synonymous with socialism or radical individualism. No wonder: For decades, the political left has used it as a Trojan horse for its big-state agenda. Yet the wreckage of their policies is obvious. Compared to the U.S., most European economies are struggling with inflation, unemployment, low growth and a declining tax base; nearly all European societies are burdened with increased crime and family breakdown; and there is a draining away of hope and opportunity.
Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond are charting a new vision of social justice. It recognizes that the problems caused or aggravated by the growth in government cannot be corrected by a crude reduction in its size. Policy must also deliberately foster the growth of what Edmund Burke called "the little platoons" of civil society: families, neighborhood associations, private enterprises, charities and churches. These are the real source of economic growth and social vitality.
Rick
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
My colleague, Carter Snead (formerly counsel to the President's Council on Bioethics), informs me that, a few days ago, UNESCO adopted the "Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights." A copy (June 24, 2005) of the draft Declaration is available here. Here is an excerpt from the United States's statement:
"The United States believes it is particularly
important that this Declaration is aimed at ensuring
fundamental freedoms and respect for the life of human
beings. The United States fully endorses the
Declaration’s recognition that respect for human
dignity and human rights requires respect for the life
of human beings. The United States, moreover,
applauds the primacy accorded to human dignity, which
is the basis for human rights."
Rick
More on Subsidiarity and SIDS
Albert J. Brooks asks some good questions about my subsidiarity-driven criticism of the American Academy of Pediatrics' condemnation of co-sleeping:
[G]iven that we are talking about a health and safety issue, I don't think the AAP is out of line in speaking to the subject. Is this much differently, qualitatively, than doctors counseling against smoking around children or recommending mandatory vaccinations? The best we can hope for is that competent experts will provide concerned parents with the best available and up-to-date information to permit us to make informed decisions. Remember, subidiarity is a two-way street. In that regard, the size of the organization can't work against the principle, as the larger the group, the more likely it is to be more competent and comprehensive to base its decision on a broader consensue of current medical opinion. I agree that simply providing information can actually further the cause of subsidiarity to the extent it empowers lower bodies to make informed choices. But the AAP may be crossing the line from acting as a resource to acting as an arbiter of acceptable practices. It's a tricky case assuming that the AAP does not act to legally enshrine their pronouncements, but I'm wondering whether, at some point, bright-line edicts on acceptable child care from a group of that stature unduly limits the practical autonomy of parents even absent the backing of the law's coercive power. As for other public health measures, we need to draw some distinctions. I see the co-sleeping issue differently than the smoking issue for two reasons. First, the evidence against smoking around children is much more compelling than the evidence against co-sleeping, as I understand it. Second -- and this relates more directly to subsidiarity -- instructing parents not to co-sleep with their kids intrudes much more directly on parental autonomy than instructing parents not to smoke around their kids. Deciding whether or not to sleep with one's children is at the core of the child-raising function; smoking around one's children is not. (Similarly, requiring everyone to wear seat belts is a minimal intrusion into the substantive life of the family even though it might be in tension with the preferences of some parents.) As for the AAP's large size, that poses its own subsidiarity problems. I'm not sure that more minds assembled in an organization produce more competence, but even so, subsidiarity is not concerned simply with reaching a "correct" result, but in reflecting lower bodies' values and priorities in the result and the process by which it is reached. The AAP's size means that it might be able to pour lots of resources into studies showing connections between co-sleeping and SIDS, but its size also means that the group's recommedations are unlikely to account for the divergent values of subcommunities. Maybe some parents co-sleep based only on their concern for the baby's physical well-being, but others might co-sleep because of concerns over emotional bonding, and these concerns might be grounded in particular cultural or religious worldviews. The size of the AAP makes it less able to respond to, much less reflect, those divergent values. Rob
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
