Search

Results

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
How far should free speech go?

03 Oct 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“Do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,” counsels this Sunday’s second reading. Hate speech by an infamous Kansas church group whose leader clearly knows no shame may be the hot-button case of record during the U.S. Supreme Court term that opens this Friday. When Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed in Anbar province in Iraq in 2006, Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr. of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church showed up with his small band of followers at the fallen Marine’s funeral at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. They were not there to mourn but to insult--or exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, they say. Church members held up signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell." Among other things, Phelps' self-styled church preaches that God is punishing America because of its tolerance for homosexuality, especially in the military. Phelps also posted an "epic poem" online titled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder," which among other things tells his parents, "You raised him for the devil." The fallen Marine’s father sued. Albert Snyder said the Phelps' protests aggravated his diabetes and depression and that he vomited when he read the "epic poem." Snyder prevailed on his claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and won a large damage award, but that ruling was reversed on appeal. There is, not surprisingly, a groundswell of support for Snyder's case. U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, minority leader Mitch McConnell, and 40 other Senators--ranging from Barbara Boxer on the left to David Vitter on the right--have signed a friend-of-the court brief urging the court to reverse the lower court’s decision and reinstate the verdict against Phelps. Another brief is signed by the attorneys general of 48 states and the District of Columbia. But the question remains, will the Supreme Court--historically reluctant to restrict speech, even offensive speech--rule for Snyder or leave him with a lament similar to that of Habakkuk’s in the first reading: ”I cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not intervene.' "? Source: An article by Adam Cohen for TIME

supreme court freedom of speech us supreme court free speech albert snyder westboro baptist church fred w phelps matthew snyder first amendment
Arresting developments concern privacy advocates

08 Apr 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The Easter narratives are stories “of discovery and insight, commissioning and departure. Most of all they are stories about witnessing,” says PrepareTheWord scripture commentator Alice Camille in this Sunday’s issue of "Exploring the Word." Privacy advocates are troubled by two legal developments this week involving discovery and witnessing: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, while an investigation has shown local law enforcement use of cellphone data to discover the location and trace the contacts of suspects is commonplace and often occurs with little or no court oversight.Once the province mainly of federal agents, cellphone data-mining has become a powerful and widely used surveillance tool for local police officials, with hundreds of departments using it aggressively, documents show. Some 5,500 pages of internal records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from 205 police departments nationwide show that the practice is in much wider use--with far looser safeguards—than officials have previously acknowledged.The practice has become big business for cellphone companies, with a handful of carriers marketing a catalog of “surveillance fees” to police departments to determine a suspect’s location, trace phone calls and texts, or provide other services. Some departments log dozens of traces a month for both emergencies and routine investigations.In other privacy news, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any reason. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of law-enforcement officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs but also public health and information about gang affiliations.Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip-searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal, and riding a bicycle without an audible bell. A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration. Sources: Articles by Adam Liptak and Eric Lichtblau for the New York Times

supreme court us supreme court cell phones privacy stephen g breyer anthony m kennedy strip searches
Will court let the gene out of the bottle?

21 Apr 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The psalmist this Sunday attests to a truth at the center of the Judeo-Christian tradition: God “made us, his we are.” The U.S. Supreme Court this week grappled with the question of whether something as intrinsic to nature as a human gene be patented. Justices seemed skeptical but also worried about what a decision to bar such patents might mean for private scientific inquiry and research.The court is considering a challenge to a decision to award a patent to Myriad Genetics for isolating human genes that indicate a hereditary disposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Doctors and patients must use the diagnostic test that Myriad has developed and others are restricted from research in that area.The patents are being challenged by organizations of physicians and researchers, geneticists, patients, and others who say that the snippets of DNA are “products of nature” and may not be patented, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued such patents for decades.The justices’ concern is warranted, court observers say. Their decision could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops.Homily hint: As science blurs the boundaries between natural creations and laboratory creations, many ethical questions are raised. Though some would like to turn back the clock or stop the experimentation, history suggests that will not happen. The question is whether or not we will experiment with fully informed ethical consciences or not. Source: Robert Barnes for the Washington Post

dna us supreme court genetics patents genes myriad genetics genetic research
Supreme Court rules on same-sex marriages

30 Jun 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“You were called for freedom, brothers and sisters,” says the reading from the Letter to the Galatians this Sunday. Proponents of same-sex marriage Wednesday hailed two U.S. Supreme Court decisions as landmarks in their struggle for the freedom to marry in California and have their marriages recognized nationwide at the federal level. At the same time the U.S. bishops released a statement saying the decisions mark “a tragic day for marriage and our nation.”One thing is certain: The debate is not over yet. As expected the court fell short of a broader ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry, meaning that there will be no impact in the more than 30 states that do not recognize gay marriage. The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples, and a voter-approved California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.The court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which limited the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits, as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.Justice Anthony Kennedy, 76, appointed to the court by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988, was the key vote and wrote the DOMA opinion, the third major gay rights ruling he has authored since 1996. In a separate opinion the court ducked a decision on Proposition 8 by finding that supporters of the California law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck it down. By doing so the justices let stand the lower-court decision that had found the ban unconstitutional.By ruling this way on Proposition 8 the court effectively let states set their own policy on gay marriage. That means a debate is set to continue in various states via ballot initiatives, legislative action, and litigation potentially costing millions of dollars on both sides of an issue that continues to stir cultural, religious, and political passions in the United States as elsewhere.Homily help: The question of same-sex marriage, as well as related issues, have embroiled church and state for the better part of a generation. As opinions have evolved toward a more accepting stance, among Catholics as well as the general population, pastoral leaders must work especially hard to make sure that any debate on this subject is infused with a spirit of mutual respect and attentive listening. Sources: Articles by Lawrence Hurley for Reuters, Patricia Zaporfor Catholic News Service, and a news release from USCCB.org

same-sex marriage proposition 8 defense of marriage act anthony kennedy doma united states conference of catholic bishops us supreme court benefits california equal protection under the law
Louisiana monastics can keep selling caskets

27 Oct 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“The time of my departure is at hand,” we hear this Sunday in 2 Timothy. When the time comes, families seeking handmade caskets to bury loved ones are now assured of being able to purchase one from a monastery in Louisiana after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from that state's funeral directors who wanted to stop the practice.“We really can now move forward without worrying about being shut down,” said Deacon Mark Coudrain, manager of St. Joseph Woodworks in Covington, Louisiana. “This is going to affect a lot of other people. A lot of people are going to have opportunities to do things that are their legal right to generate revenue.”In a little-noticed ruling on October 15, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case between the monks of St. Joseph Abbey and the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. In 2007 the abbey began selling handmade coffins, prompting the board to file a lawsuit that argued Louisiana law required a funeral director’s license for casket sales.The monks won the case and the initial appeal. The funeral directors then asked the Supreme Court to review the case; by not agreeing to hear it, the high court let stand the appeals court ruling, which said that Louisiana does not regulate the use or construction of caskets.The monks have buried their own members as well as the occasional bishop or donor in handmade caskets for years. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed the abbey’s timberland, a source of revenue, the monks decided to sell caskets to fund the medical and educational needs of the abbey.The monastery invested $200,000 in St. Joseph Woodworks and sold “monastic” and “traditional” cypress caskets for $1,500 and $2,000, prices “significantly lower” than caskets at funeral homes, as the appeals court noted in its decision.Coudrain said selling caskets also serves as a way of sharing Catholic teaching about the meaning of death. “The theology of the church is that our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit, and the spirit has moved on, but we want to respect the body as well,” Coudrain said.Homily hint: Thinking about life ending, either our own or a loved one’s, is never easy. Perhaps the the second reading's notion of “departure” rather than ending offers a helpful metaphor for the journey we undertake. At some point we need to sit back, relax, and trust God to guide us home. Source: An article by Katherine Burgess for Religion News Service

death mark coudrain st joseph woodworks monastic caskets lawsuits st joseph abbey caskets louisiana us supreme court funeral directors