Steve Skojec…

…seems to me to make sense. I salute for giving him a forum.

"I removed the comment before you responded. Too frustrated with your continual grasping at moral ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"Excuse me? Enough what, Linda?"

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"This fained concern about Truth is simply another GOP ploy that takes us down a ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"the more shocking thing about this story to me More shocking implies "matters more""

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kirt Higdon

    Skojec is dead right about judicial appointments. I’ve often made that point myself but pro-lifers as a whole are just convinced that the Republicans can be trusted to make good judicial appointments.

  • Andy

    To think that the republicans really want to outlaw abortion is akin to believing the moon is made of cheese (pick your color). The republicans want to use abortion as a whip against democrats, and to whip up favor of the anti-abortion crowd and then say it was the fault of the court or the fault of someone else, and not our fault. I pray that soon the anti-abortion crowd will start to recognize that like democrats republicans want abortions to be available, just for different reasons. Again Mr. Shea’s ruling class argument.

  • Mr. Skojec has a good point about the GOP’s disinterest in the Sanctity of Life Act. It shows that the GOP is really not that interested in doing anything about abortion.

    • Dale Price

      That’s one area where I’ll disagree with Steve: the SOLA just might not work, given that the Constitution calls for the creation and vesting of authority with a court system.

      Even assuming you could strip the courts of jurisdiction over a particular piece of legislation, that’s a Pandora’s box–just imagine, say, the Democrats who passed Obamacare stuffing it with a provision divesting the courts of the power to review it. The mischief would be endless, and I don’t know that we’d care for a legislative tyranny any more than we would an executive, or judicial.

      • Dale,
        As I understand it, regulating and making exceptions to court powers is a Congressional power under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The pertinent language is as follows:

        “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

        If you read that the way I do, and it would legally work, then the question boils down to the (as you said) Pandora’s box. It could get ugly, sure, but uglier than it is now? At least a legislative tyranny would be accountable to the electorate. The justices have a tyranny and we have no recourse.

        • I agree that there is some potential for ugliness once the “Pandora’s box” is opened. Then again, it’s already pretty ugly: as Steve says, “the justices have a tyranny” right now. In addition, I’d be willing to put up with a large amount of potential ugliness in order to get rid of Roe vs. Wade.

          I would much rather face a legislative tyranny than a judicial one. There is no recourse against a judicial tyranny. A legislative tyranny is curbed at least somewhat by the fact that there’s always another election just around the corner.

          • Ted Seeber

            How can it get any uglier than the genocide we’re already experiencing?

  • Thanks for your support, everyone. It’s been very encouraging to discover that I’m not just s lone voice in the wilderness. More Catholics are waking up to this reality. In 2008, I came very close to losing some good friendships over these sorts of arguments. I see that the tide is turning. Slowly, but turning.

    And please do thank CatholicVote for giving voice to an alternative viewpoint. They asked me to write for them, not the other way round, and that is very much to their credit. I think they took a risk on me, and I hope they don’t regret it.

    • Steve, it is good to have you in the mix at Keep doing what you’re doing!

    • Ghosty

      Thank you for writing articles like this, Steve. If we’re to have a true pro-life change in this country it’s going to require different methods then we’ve seen over the past 40 years. It’s difficult to admit that a long standing approach is wrongheaded, as it makes it seem like all the work has been in vain, but we must change our focus to achieve our pro-life goals.

      Vote Republican for whatever reasons you like, just don’t base your vote on the notion that a Republican President will appoint the Justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade as that is a foolish dream. There are quicker and much more legitimate ways to make abortion illegal in this country (the Sanctity of Life Act being a great example), but we’re stuck with blinders and keep chanting the mantra of SCOTUS because it’s the political bait that we’ve gotten used to swallowing.

      Peace and God bless!

      • Ted Seeber

        One way we really need to change our ways is to realize that we can have respect for life or respect for prosperity, but not both.