Mirror of Justice

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Father Joe and activism

Two separate points.
I too recommend Father Joe. It is an excellent book (though I found Father Joe's visitor annoying some of the time).
I also appreciate Richard's point about Sotomayor. If she is pro choice, she can hardly be accused of engaging in results oriented jurisprudence in the abortion cases she has heard.

I think, however, that the term "activist" has been used in a one-sided way and is not very helpful in any event. I would hope that the Sotomayor confirmation process would frontally attack the conservative claim that their justices interpret the Constitution and that liberals are “activists.” When the conservatives disable Congressional power (contrary to many decades of judicial precedent - even conceding that commerce clause interpretations had gone quite far) and in some cases obviously mangling the Constitution, e.g., the eleventh amendment cases) and when they overthrow affirmative action (despite the original meaning of the 14th amendment all the while claiming that they adhere to original meaning), it is hard to understand why their decisions are not activist. Staring at the word activist does not help in the process of constitutional interpretation. It is just an ideological term employed by conservatives, and it should be understood as such.

"On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Show Unease "

By Michael Perry

According to an article in the NYT:

"Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution. In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. 'The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,' she wrote, also taking note of 'the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.'"

No one who makes such an outrageous and scandalous statement should be considered for, much less appointed to, a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States!

Read the entire article, here.

Eduardo Peñalver on Sonia Sotomayor

By Michael Perry

Read what former MOJ blogger Eduardo has to say, here. Very interesting indeed.

Sotomayor may not be so bad

By rstith

Sotomayor is being attacked by pro-lifers for two reasons: She is said to be pro-abortion, and she is said to be a judicial activist.

But on each of the three past occasions when abortion was connected to the case before her on the bench, she ruled against abortion.

Am i missing something, or don't these three outcomes tend to show that although she might be pro-abortion or she might be a judicial activist, she can't be both? (Because if she were both, she would probably have come out on the other side of those cases.)

Father Joe: The Man Who Saved My Soul

By Michael Scaperlanda

I haven't finished grading yet, but I have finished the first book on my summer reading list - Father Joe: The Man Who Saved My Soul by Tony Hendra. Andrew Sullivan writes: "Extrodinary, luminescent, profound ... I beg you to read this book." And, I agree!

HT: Dr. Bill S.

Sotomayor and religious freedom

By Rick Garnett

Prof. Howard Friedman, at the "Religion Clause" blog, has collected Judge Sotomayor's religious-freedom decisions, here. In my view, notwithstanding the (unsurprising) fact that my strong preference would have been for Justice Souter to have been replaced by someone selected by Pres. McCain, Judge Sotomayor's religious-liberty decisions -- especially her dissent in Hankins (on the ministerial exception) -- are encouraging.

Reminder: Annual Meeting of the Conference of Catholic Legal Thought

By Susan Stabile

REMINDER: The 4th Annual Conference on Catholic Legal Thought, will be hosted at Catholic University’s Law School (Washington D.C.) from June 9 – 11, 2009. If you are a law professor with an interest in Catholic Legal Thought, please join us for the 4th Annual Conference on Catholic Legal Thought, hosted this year at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. As with the prior conferences, this meeting is for those law professors who are just beginning to integrate Catholic social thought into their scholarship and teaching, as well as those law professors who are more experienced. As has become traditional, the first afternoon will be an introduction to basic principles of Catholic social teachings. The second and third days will consist of more in-depth, interactive presentations and discussions. Our time together will also encompass daily Mass and spiritual exercises, as well as the opportunity for participants to share meals and much informal fellowship. For this 2009 Conference, we selected as our theme “The Legal Implications of the Work of Pope Benedict XVI” with the idea that our conversation would be organized around the central themes in his writings as both theologian and pontiff: Love, Hope, and Law. Unlike many typical conferences, we hope that this will not be a collection of presentations at an audience, but rather that it will truly be a discussion led by our presenters with all conference participants. To that end, a list of reading materials will be circulated to all registrants in advance of the conference. If you would like further information about the Conference and registration materials, please contact Prof. Lucia Silecchia ([email protected]) before Friday, May 28th!