Search

Results

Armed and dangerous

26 Apr 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The disciples were "startled and terrified" when the risen Lord stood in their midst, we read in the gospel this Sunday. Ten years after students at Colorado's Columbine High School were terrified by two heavily armed students who killed 12 fellow students, a teacher, and themselves, a survey suggests that support for stricter gun laws has diminished rather than grown in recent years, despite a steady stream of other gun massacres. For a time, the carnage at Columbine--and the ease with which the teenagers acquired high-powered weapons--seemed to usher in a new era of support for greater regulation of firearms. But in recent years support has waned. A poll released last week by CNN showed that support for stricter gun laws was at an all-time low, with only 39 percent of respondents in favor. Eight years ago that number was 54 percent. Texas lawmakers are mulling a new law that would allow college students to carry firearms on campus. Utah already makes this practice legal. Another law up for debate in Texas would prohibit most companies from barring employees from keeping guns in their cars in company parking lots. In Montana, only last-minute compromise stripped a new law of language that would have given residents the right to carry concealed weapons with or without a permit. Since 2003 at least eight states have either passed new laws giving most residents the right to carry concealed handguns or changed existing laws to make it harder for state officials to deny those permits, according to a 2008 study in the Yale Law & Policy Review. In the past couple of years another trend has taken root, too: the expansion of the so-called Castle Doctrine, a legal theory enshrined in common law. It is used to justify deadly force in the defense of one's home, although it's usually interpreted to include a duty to try to avoid confrontation if one can. Last year the Supreme Court struck down what had been the strictest gun-control ordinance in the country, the ban on handguns in murder-plagued Washington, D.C. Source: Articles by Michael A. Lindenberger for TIME and Catherine Tsai for Associated Press

gun control supreme court deadly force castle doctrine texas state laws laws gun laws guns columbine high school
High time

31 May 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday's reading from John 15 Jesus says that the Spirit of truth as well as the disciples will testify to him. If President Barack Obama gets his wish, federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor will hear the testimony of those who argue before the U.S. Supreme Court in coming terms. Tuesday Obama nominated Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be tapped for the high court. Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge in New York, is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents and was raised in a Bronx public housing project. She was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8; her father died when she was 9; and her mother often worked two jobs to send her brother and her to Catholic schools. Obama called her life "an extraordinary journey." "When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land," Obama said as he introduced her in the East Room of the White House Tuesday, "America will have taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law." Sotomayor's past comments about how her gender and ethnicity affected her decisions, and the role of appeals courts in making policy, generated instant conservative complaints that she is a judicial activist. Senate Republicans vowed to scrutinize her record, but with Democrats in reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, the White House appeared to dare Republicans to stand against a history-making nomination at a time when both parties are courting the growing Hispanic vote. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the sixth Roman Catholic on the high court, which may provoke debate on the role her faith does or should play in her judicial decision-making. While her life experience may align her with the social justice teachings of the church on issues such as race, poverty, immigration, and economics, observers say, she may be challenged in confirmation hearings to discuss her stance on issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. Source: Articles by Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny and Julie Hirschfeld Davis for the Associated Press and a posting to USA TODAY'S Faith & Reason blog

barack obama supreme court sonia sotomayor hispanics puerto ricans catholic
Mr. Franken goes to Washington

05 Jul 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The Minnesota Supreme Court Tuesday declared media figure-turned-politician Al Franken the winner of the state’s U.S. Senate race, ending an eight-month-long election saga and giving Democrats a 60-seat majority that theoretically would allow them to block GOP filibusters. Political analysts, however, as well as Franken himself, cautioned Democrats not to be “too elated,” to use Saint Paul’s words in this Sunday’s second reading. In a unanimous ruling the court rejected the legal arguments of Franken’s Republican opponent Norm Coleman that some absentee ballots had been improperly counted and that some localities had used inconsistent standards in counting votes. The ruling led Coleman to concede his Senate seat to Franken, who could be sworn in as soon as next week, when the Senate returns from a recess. Democrats now have their largest majority in the Senate since 1978, but their ability to prevent filibusters is likely to prove illusory. A pair of prominent Democrats, Senators Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and (W.Va.), have missed many votes this year because of illness. “The idea that you’ve got 60 reliable Democrats for votes for sweeping policy change simply doesn’t work; it’s not the reality of it,” said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “The larger challenge for [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid or Barack Obama is managing expectations of people who are thinking: When you get 60 votes, you get do to whatever you want. And they most assuredly do not.” An article by Perry Bacon, Jr. for the Washington Post

barack obama norman j ornstein filibuster robert c byrd edward m kennedy republicans democrats us senate minnesota supreme court al franken norm coleman harry reid american enterprise institute
Hearings confirm partisan politics

19 Jul 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Christ "broke down the dividing wall of enmity," we hear in the Letter to the Ephesians this Sunday. But confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week have not done the same, as divisions between Republican and Democratic panel members have been front and center. The week-long exchange is only partly about the fate of Sotomayor's nomination, who is widely expected to gain easy confirmation. But Democrats hope that Republican criticism of Sotomayor will alienate Latino voters, while conservatives are looking to use the Sotomayor hearings as a way to motivate their base. During a tough round of questioning from skeptical Republicans on Tuesday, Sotomayor said that she would not let ethnic or gender biases influence her decisions on the court. The appellate court judge backed away from her widely quoted "wise Latina" comments and the suggestion that ethnic identity might sway her decisions. "Our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others," she said. But the "law is what commands the result." Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) asked whether Sotomayor would agree with President Barack Obama's statement that suggested there was a place in judicial decision-making for "empathy" for certain disadvantaged groups. But Sotomayor flatly rejected that approach. "We apply law to facts," Sotomayor said. "We don't apply feelings." Source: Articles by Michael D. Shear for the Washington Post and David G. Savageand James Oliphant for the Los Angeles Times

Law judiciary committee nomination confirmation jon kyl us senate sonia sotomayor latinos supreme court us supreme court
Hearings confirm partisan politics

19 Jul 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Christ "broke down the dividing wall of enmity," we hear in the Letter to the Ephesians this Sunday. But confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week have not done the same, as divisions between Republican and Democratic panel members have been front and center. The week-long exchange is only partly about the fate of Sotomayor's nomination, who is widely expected to gain easy confirmation. But Democrats hope that Republican criticism of Sotomayor will alienate Latino voters, while conservatives are looking to use the Sotomayor hearings as a way to motivate their base. During a tough round of questioning from skeptical Republicans on Tuesday, Sotomayor said that she would not let ethnic or gender biases influence her decisions on the court. The appellate court judge backed away from her widely quoted "wise Latina" comments and the suggestion that ethnic identity might sway her decisions. "Our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others," she said. But the "law is what commands the result." Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) asked whether Sotomayor would agree with President Barack Obama's statement that suggested there was a place in judicial decision-making for "empathy" for certain disadvantaged groups. But Sotomayor flatly rejected that approach. "We apply law to facts," Sotomayor said. "We don't apply feelings." Source: Articles by Michael D. Shear for the Washington Post and David G. Savageand James Oliphant for the Los Angeles Times

Law judiciary committee nomination confirmation jon kyl us senate sonia sotomayor latinos supreme court us supreme court
Diocese fails to court justices

08 Nov 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Christ, the high priest in this Sunday's reading from the Letter to the Hebrews, "did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands." The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to enter into deliberations on an appeal filed by the Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut of a state court decision to make public more than 12,000 pages of clergy sexual abuse files. The appeal to the nation's highest court was the diocese's likely last legal effort to keep secret documents from 23 clergy sexual abuse cases that were settled in 2001. Four newspapers--the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Hartford Courant--have been fighting for eight years to get the documents unsealed. Among the court documents are three depositions by former Bishop Edward Egan, who was in charge of the Bridgeport diocese when most of the lawsuits against priests under his supervision were filed and adjudicated. Egan retired last year as the archbishop of New York City. The Hartford Courant obtained copies of Egan's depositions, which show that he knowingly transferred priests who had been accused of sexual molesting minors to different parishes and rarely removed an alleged pedophile priest from service. Church officials believe that the church has been treated unfairly by the courts and the media in the case. "We were disappointed to learn that the United States Supreme Court has decided not to hear our case. The Court reviews only about 80 cases out of more than 10,000 cases presented, and regularly reminds the public that it must decline to review many cases that were wrongly decided by the lower courts. Unfortunately, ours was one of those cases," diocesan spokesman Joseph McAleer said. Source: An article by Dave Altimari for the Hartford Courant

priests supreme court clergy sexual abuse
The Supremes are back in the spotlight

18 Apr 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday's reading from the Book of Acts, the apostles are brought for questioning before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court, announced late last week that he will retire at the end of this term after 35 years on the high court. He presents President Barack Obama with his second opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Speculation as to the selection is in high gear. The White House list of potential nominees to fill the latest vacancy on the Court comprises an ethnically and geographically diverse group of candidates that includes established jurists and politicians, moderates, and progressives, insiders said. As for the Senate confirmation process, Republicans have a weapon they lacked last year when Sonia Sotomayor was tapped for the court: enough votes to conceivably mount a filibuster and block the nominee outright. A more moderate pick could defuse a potential powder keg before it's lit. A more progressive one could lead to fireworks. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate confirmation committee, said Sunday his party won't rule out a filibuster. Still, he said he hopes "we do not do that" to block President Obama's as-yet unnamed nominee for the high court. Only under "extraordinary circumstances" would it be appropriate for the GOP to scuttle Obama's second pick for the high court, Sessions said. Speaking Monday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R.-Utah) said a moderate judge could be confirmed "in a relatively short period of time." But if the White House chooses an "activist judge," as Hatch termed it, "we ought to do everything in our power to defeat that person." With midterm elections looming, however, both parties may want to avoid a fight over social issues, which often become the focus of contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, observers said. Source: Articles by James Gordon Meek for the New York Daily News, James Oliphant and Christi Parsons for the Los Angeles Times, and James Rosen for Fox News

barack obama supreme court republicans filibuster jeff sessions john paul stevens orrin hatch
Senate to debate whether Kagan is supremely qualified

16 May 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Justice and judgment are the foundation of the Lord's throne, we read in this Sunday's psalm. Justice and judgment are in the news this week with the announcement that Solicitor General Elana Kagan has been nominated to become the nation's 112th justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmation hearing may prove contentious, observers said. At a ceremony with Kagan at his side in the East Room of the White House Monday, President Obama called Kagan--the first woman to serve as solicitor general and as dean of the Harvard Law School--a "trailblazing leader" and "consensus builder" known for "her openness to a wide range of viewpoints." Kagan said she was proud to be chosen to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after 35 years. She said that the court serves the country "by upholding the rule of law and by enabling all Americans, regardless of their background or their beliefs, to get a fair hearing and an equal chance at justice." Her selection touched off a debate about her background. Although many justices through history have joined the court with no prior service as a judge, Kagan would be the first in nearly four decades. On Wednesday Kagan went to Capitol Hill for her first meetings with senators who will vote on her nomination. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) promised to make the confirmation process "as smooth as possible," but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) warned the confirmation would not be a "rush to judgment." Republicans said Kagan must prove she will not be a "rubber stamp" for the administration and cautioned that a lack of candor could be detrimental to her getting bipartisan approval. But those who want to know Kagan's views on hot-button legal issues such as the legality of the new health care law, the constitutionality of gay marriage, or Arizona's new immigration law are unlikely to learn much, observers predicted. If Kagan follows the playbook for recent nominees, she will decline to comment on current political or social issues or hypothetical legal cases. Source: Articles by Perry Bacon, Jr. for the Washington Post, Julie Hirschfeld Davis for the Associated Press, and Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny for the New York Times

harry reid senate supreme court elana kagan mitch mcconnell
Desert cross at center of court fight is stolen

16 May 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday's second reading, John hears the voice of one who is coming soon with "the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." Rewards totaling $35,000 have been offered for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for stealing a war memorial shaped like a cross that was at the center of a recent Supreme Court judgment. The cross was torn from its moorings in a remote California desert last weekend and carried off by vandals. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Liberty Institute, the legal organization that represented the veterans groups in the Supreme Court case, offered the reward. "This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves," said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of Liberty Institute. "It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed." The cross was first erected in 1934 by a local VFW unit to honor war dead. It has been rebuilt several times over the years and Easter services are held annually at the remote desert site. The site is on national park land. The high court on April 28 ruled the cross did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. "It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society." Source: An article by Bill Mears for CNN

cross church and state supreme court kelly shackelford liberty institute veterans of foreign wars
Supreme Court takes aim at gun restrictions

04 Jul 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Rejoice with Jerusalem, says the Lord in this Sunday’s reading from the Book of Isaiah, while the psalmist encourages all to “shout joyfully.” Gun-rights advocates rejoiced after a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision restraining government limits on gun ownership. Gun-control advocates took some solace in the fact that the decision does not bar all regulation of guns. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., writing for the majority, said a right to self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Such fundamental protections, he said, limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments. The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical effect is unclear. The justices left for another day just what kinds of gun-control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection. The majority said little more than that there is a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. Observers say there are two sets of laws likely to be struck down by judges as a result of the ruling: state and local gun laws that prohibit people from carrying firearms outside the home, and burdensome registration requirements. An explosion of cases likely will keep courts busy for years defining gun control’s new limits. Legal challenges already are pending against several state and big-city gun laws. Local officials around the country expressed confidence that their regulations would hold up under legal scrutiny, but many scholars were not so sure. “I think a lot of these will fall,” said Temple University law professor David Kairys, a gun-control proponent. “Can you limit people’s ability to carry concealed weapons, or open weapons? That’s noticeably absent from the majority’s list of what you can do.” On the other hand, Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law school professor who has written extensively on constitutional issues, predicted challenges to the ban on assault rifles will fail because judges will conclude that people still will be “free to have lots and lots of guns.” But he said attempts to eliminate carrying restrictions probably will fare better because gun-rights advocates can argue that their right to self-defense means that they should be able to carry their weapons almost wherever they want, with exceptions for government buildings and schools. Family Violence Prevention Fund lawyer Jennifer White said she expects stepped-up challenges to laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of domestic violence. “It would be a horrible danger to battered women and children if that aspect of the law is eliminated,” White said. Source: Articles by Adam Liptak for the New York Times and Mark Sherman for Associated Press

gun control guns supreme court second amendment

← Previous 1 2 3 4 Next →