Not cruel or unusual: Update, update
The Supreme Court, 7-2, including all the Catholics, upholds Kentucky death penalty drugs.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-5439.pdf
Let’s see: Will the pope be visiting Roberts et al?
Update: Yup, they are. Dinner at the WH. The menu: morel-encrusted diver scallops, spatzle, angel hair asparagus bisque, veal, white truffle-potato dumplings, carrots and mushrooms, lettuces and candied pumpkin seeds, squash carpaccio, pumpkin oil vinaigrette, raspberry crisp and mint coulis. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php? id=D90321N00&show_article=1
Barbara Update: Hmmm. I guess I’ll go with the WashPost on this unless the Pope’s secretary would like to weigh in here. Fine print: Breitbart actually says, dinner in honor of the Pope. All the spalsh without any of the bother!
Bill Update: looks definitive: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-BMdyBE1OTgcAGkicARRoO_-kSQD8VVS2O00
But still, will any of the esteemed hierarchs or clergy chat the with SC Five about this matter of not-cruel-and-unusual?
The Times has details about the decision. Steven’s concurring opinion in the decision, nonetheless, argues that it is time to end the death penalty in the U.S., but doesn’t look like he’ll be supping with the Catholics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/16cnd-scotus.html?pagewanted=2&hp
Just FYI: It’s been widely advertised that the Pope will not be attending the WH dinner in his honor. No really compelling explanation was given. Do you have updated information?
It will be a rare Supreme Court decision that comes as a surprise post the Bush appointees.
Paul – Original Faith
Here it is, from today’s WaPo:
“Bush is hosting a dinner tonight to honor the pope in the East Room, with many prominent Catholics scheduled to attend, though Benedict himself will not be there.”
FWIW.
If the Catholics on the Supreme Court accepted the Church’s position on capital punishment, could (or should) that influence their thinking on whether or not capital punishment is cruel and unusual? (I know that wasn’t the question at hand here, although the non-Catholic Justice Stevens expressed his opinion on it anyway.)
I do think it’s interesting (as I have said before) that the justices seem exempt from the kinds of criticisms and pressures the Church and the pro-life movement bring against legislators and candidates for the presidency. When the Supreme Court allows the continuation of the death penalty or abortion, they can say it’s not because of their personal beliefs, it is their interpretation of the constitution, which is determined by their judicial philosophy, not by what they believe is right and wrong. It doesn’t seem all that different to me from legislators or candidates who say they are personally opposed to something (usually abortion) but believe it’s a constitutional right.
Nice post David; it reminds me of the old “Catholics and Pluralism” debate of yore. That debate, to my mind, has never been resolved. Catholics are damned if they do and damned if they don’t follow their Catholic beliefs and duties. And that debate extends to Christians in general: We’ve all heard people ask something along the lines of, “How can you call yourself a Christian and support the war in Iraq?” Think of illegal immigration, abortion, living wage, and people on both sides urging others to “do the Christian thing” or “How dare you try and impose your Christian values on me”. It goes on and on…
The rubber meets the road on this one. Each person’s explanation will say more about him or her than the issue.
Here it is from the Vatican Information Service:
” At 5.30 p.m. local time (11.30 p.m. in Rome) the Holy Father will go to Washington’s National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception where he will preside at the celebration of Vespers with United States bishops.
Following the ceremony, the Pope will return to the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C., where he will dine in private and spend the night.”
But will they bring take-out from the White House? Angel hair aspargus bisque, perhaps?
Do we see here a Rovian maneuver flirting for the Catholic vote?
Apparently it was known at least four days ago that the pope was not attending. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-BMdyBE1OTgcAGkicARRoO_-kSQD8VVS2O00
And what bisque are Barack’s Catholic Advisory Chefs cooking up?
I think that the pope never intimated that he would appear at a state dinner from the beginning of the plans for the trip. He has said that he would not involve himself in the American election, and I think he means it.
I read somewhere that the original date in October, which the UN preferred, was changed to April because the pope thought October was too close to the American election.
Fr. Imbelli:
The dinner is catered by Cafe Milano, one of the poshest restaurants in Georgetown. A place to see and be seen, it is a celebrity haven.
“And what bisque are Barack’s Catholic Advisory Chefs cooking up?”
Pax vo-bisque-cum, of course.
(Think about it. It’ll grow on you.)
Bob Imbelli–You seem to be develping a blogger’s tic about Obama’s Catholic Advisory Panel! Or perhaps, depending on one’s political views, it is more like Tourette’s?!
Dave Gibson-et cum spiritu tuo — with benedictions!
I vote for William Collier to get the Annabale Bugnini aggiornamento/ressourcement prize for the way he captured the sense of the tradition in a new moment. Please put him on ICEL.
David Nickol raises an interesting issue.
I’ll hazard a few guesses as to why Supreme Court justices “seem exempt from the kinds of criticisms and pressures the Church and the pro-life movement bring against legislators and candidates for the presidency.”
First, SC justices are appointed for life, and they are also subject to other protections designed to ensure their judicial independence—e.g., removal by impeachment only, no decrease in their pay by Congress, etc. They have no direct connection to the will of the people for either obtaining their jobs or for remaining in their jobs. Having an independent judiciary is one of the hallmarks of American democracy, but SC justices do get criticized for their decisions, even by the Church, at times. For example, Justice William Brennan, a Catholic, was criticized by the Church for his vote in Roe v. Wade. Such criticism has little real effect on a SC justice’s job security and decision making, however, and that is undoubtedly a major reason why irate members of the public don’t seem to criticize SC justices on a regular basis. By contrast, some states, such as Texas, have elected high court officials; criticism of elected state justices is quite common because the populace knows their job security is vulnerable, and criticism at least has the potential to have an effect on a justice’s decision making.
Legislators, on the other hand, have anything but job security. Their jobs are directly dependent on convincing a majority of their constituents to vote for them. It seems obvious that legislators are often targets of criticism because the public believes or hopes such criticism will affect a legislator’s votes.
Second, some US SC justices may have identifiable “judicial philosoph[ies],” such as strict constructionist or judicial liberal, and I tend to believe that most justices try to do their jobs in a dispassionate manner, but, like all of us, I don’t think they can always isolate their personal beliefs, including their innate sense of right and wrong, from their work product. In the Dred Scott decision, the SC held that Negroes are not “persons” under the Constitution. We now find such a holding to be morally repugnant. “Person” at the moment does not include the unborn; perhaps in time, a group of at least 5 SC justices will decide, for jurisprudential and moral reasons, that “person” does include the unborn and that they are therefore entitled to constitutional protections.
Finally, there is a difference between abortion and the death penalty in Catholic teaching. The former is wrong as Church dogma, the latter falls into the “prudential judgment” category. I happen to think that one day the Church will also condemn the death penalty in dogmatic terms, but for now the 5 Catholic justices who voted today to uphold lethal injections as a method of execution were not technically in violation of Church doctrine.
I thank Prof. Mitchell for his vote for the Archbishop Bugnini prize. The Archbishop was a true reformer, but I will have to pass on ICEL. I hear they settle translation disputes between progressives and traditionalists with fistfights, and I abhor violence except when I know for certain I can win.
Bill Collier wrote:
Seems that Bill is basically talking about how legal doctrines (can) develop. I’ve heard that Newman wrote about how Christian doctrine develops. Does anyone know if there are similarities between those two kinds of development – or if they’re totally different? Can anyone recommend a good book or essay on the subject?
Dear William Collier, I beg you to reconsider your ICEL appointment: the information you possess is outdated. It has been years now since any progressives have been allowed in the building!