Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

19-July-2005 | Ron Pickrell

Posted on 07/19/2005 9:31:52 PM PDT by pickrell

The adherents to the Roman Catholic faith, to continue in good standing, must accept one of the cornerstones of that faith, and so accept absolute "Papal Infallibility", when invoked.

Due to the separation of church and state- propounded so zealously by the political Left in this country-, and like the Ten Commandments which they have so far successfully banished from courtrooms throughout the land- (except one...), this principal of infallibility is not inscribed in stone in any courtroom in the country.

Yet the principal of stare decisis has somehow, though, in the recent past, begun to wear the de-facto cloak of "judicial infallibility", and the concept of "settled law", as evidenced by "Prohibition", "Dred Scott", and a host of other settled laws, must of course be held above review by lesser men. After all, Prohibition was brought about by an Amendment to the Constitution, and pre-Civil War slavery edicts were legally decided by an august body of learned judges. Above review forever...

But the question must be asked- when the Senate confirms the next Supreme Court Justice in the coming months- will we first know of it by the white smoke coming from the chimney of the Senate Building? At what point did the concept of Judicial Infallibility assume capital letters?

The Congress of the United States can, and does, err at times, and the power of the President to veto the laws passed, and the power of the Supreme Court to declare those laws as incompatible with the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, serve, as they were originally intended, as checks upon the risk of such errors of men.

Similarly, when the President carries out actions abhorrent to the duly elected representatives of the land, his funds to implement the offending actions may be cut off by Congress, and if such transgressions rise to a sufficient level, the Congress was specifically authorized by the Constitution to draw Articles of Impeachment in one congressional body, and try him in the other.

These safeguards were enshrined in the Constitution for a reason. The founding fathers had no illusions of the infallibility of mortal men, and specifically attested to that fact by building into our system of government those same checks and balances. One would otherwise wonder why the Congress and the President were not also robed in "Presidential Infallibility" and "Congressional Infallibility" (an oxymoron, or something to do with morons, certainly).

Is there something about a building, itself bearing the Ten Commandments, using Bibles to administer oaths, and sitting itself in review of the legal decisions of several levels of Federal Appeals courts beneath it, so that judicial error may be identified and corrected...that somehow soaks into the bones of Nine Judges, and mysteriously confers upon them "Judicial Infallibility"?

The argument is propounded that the vast weight of law, as we currently know it, rests upon decisions previously made by the Supreme Court, and so, by principal of stare decisis, no review is kosher, no reconsideration in light of consequences unknown or unappreciated at the time of the fiat of the "cloaked", can ever undo what could be a tragic mistake. This mistake must always be built upon, compounded and expanded into ever more tragic proportions.

Is this truly what the theologians of the judiciary would have us believe?

Bloody wars have been fought to make certain men in power understand that evil is no less evil when sanctified by those assuming omnipotence unto themselves.

It is necessary for continuity to be present in law, and the authority to act as final arbiter of law is enshrined with the Supreme Court. By any logic, then, the ability to correct previous error must exist within some body of the government. Who can it be?

Who can argue against the conclusion that the body most suited to this task, in fact- the only body so authorized to do so... is that same Supreme Court? What law can restrain the final arbiters of law, from fulfilling their primary task of reviewing law?

If we should so remove these judges from the pressures of politics and the will of the people that we extend a lifetime tenure to them, as we have; and only subject them to the ephemeral scrutiny of Congressional Impeachment for the gravest offenses imaginable (as we nearly never have) ... then, ...who else can correct previous error?

To argue that stare decisis should rise to the level of a sacrament in some wierd, quasi-state religion, is to violate that canon of the liberals, and force acknowledgement that sacraments actually then exist. The quandry will pro-duce the same results as country music did to the aliens, in "Mars Attacks!".

When the Senators play for the cameras, and demand a pre-appointment resume of future judicial decisions, will the American public determine that a price will be paid by the inquisitors, next election day?

Certainly they will want to know the character of a lifetime appointee to such a powerful and insulated position. But will they appreciate irrelevant, slanderous and vicious attacks upon a nominee presumed fit to decide American law? What antics will be deemed tolerable? How much effort will go into acting as poster boys, living examples, of the unfitness of some men to serve in high public office, irrespective of the nominee across the room?

We shall see, in the upcoming Supreme Court term, whether Judge Roberts and company will pull the dusty copy of the Constitution out, set it beside the Federalist papers, and determine what cloak they wear.

TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: judicialerror; staredecisis; supremecourt

1 posted on 07/19/2005 9:31:54 PM PDT by pickrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pickrell

To me, "infallibility" means that if you don't like the church, then tough- you can leave. Many do.

It's only the people who stay and complain who don't quite "get it".

2 posted on 07/19/2005 9:52:28 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pickrell
Sorry, but Jennifer Connelly was getting laid on the toob just now (no nekiddity), but lots of moans and I was a bit distracted while reading your post.

Can you do a synopsis of this article and tell me WFT it is saying for the laity?

Is it about abortion?

I was raised Catholic (it obviously didn't take root), but I can't say it hasn't improved my moral character (yeah, I know, double negative).

If it makes you feel better, if I ever have kids, I'll send them to Catholic schools.

3 posted on 07/19/2005 10:07:06 PM PDT by benjaminjjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
"I was raised Catholic (it obviously didn't take root), but I can't say it hasn't improved my moral character"

I can.

4 posted on 07/19/2005 10:33:26 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
LOL, so can't I.

Look up double negative dude!

5 posted on 07/19/2005 11:35:33 PM PDT by benjaminjjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
"...Can you do a synopsis of this article and tell me WFT it is saying for the laity?..."

I'll do my best. The article is laid out as an argument that future Supreme Courts should be able to review past decisions, of past Supreme Court Justices, and change what went wrong in those decisions.

The essay was meant as a logical argument towards rejecting the notion that decisions made in the past are somehow... infallible... (like Roe vs. Wade), and therefore are sacrosanct and untouchable.

I'm afraid that to do so, I found it necessary to begin the piece by first illustrating a well known doctrine of "infallibility", that of catholic "Papal Infallibility" of the Pope, in order to introduce the concept of infallibility- that of the presumption of impossibility of error. That is, after all, the definition of infallibility.

Apparently, arguing against the principal of "stare decisis", which means, in Cliff's Notes shorthand, that the Supreme Court enjoys the cliche "never having to say you're sorry", is rather wasted when someone is moaning on television.

I was raised catholic also, but apparently the mere mention of a denomination in a political essay turns off readers.

Enjoy your show, and I apologize for distracting you.

6 posted on 07/20/2005 12:29:53 PM PDT by pickrell (Old dog, new trick...sort of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pickrell
First off, thank you for respondingl to my question.

Secondly, your explanation was concise.

May I thank you again? one of my favorite old-time movies is "The Name of the Rose"


'cuse me ther's some shit going down outside my door right now....b

7 posted on 07/20/2005 11:17:55 PM PDT by benjaminjjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson