Thursday, March 03, 2005
Krytocracy and the USCCB
Krytocracy - government ruled by judges.
This concept first reared its ugly head in the debates over the Brown v. Board of Education in which desegregaton was eventually found to be unconstitutional by a unanimous court. Justice Stanley Reed was rightly concerned with the novel idea that judges could find for any outcome that they personally found agreeable regardless of what the law actually stated.
Now I am not about to condemn the outcome of the Court's decision in the aforementioned case. I do think I could have crafted a decision (gee, aren't I humble!) that would have achieved the same outcome but would have been more traditionally and constitutionally sound. However, since I cannot go back in time and influence the Supreme Court, I must stick with the current crisis of the court.
The Supreme Court's juvenile death penalty decision is a perfect example of krytocracy. The Court decided, on a 5-4 vote, that their vision of right and wrong, influenced by world opinion and legal precedents of other countries, is more important that the rightfully enacted laws of the states in question.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should be alarmed and not gratified by the outcome. Krytocracy is the enemy of freedom including the freedom of religion. There is nothing that would stop the Court from deciding that some government has a better idea on what freedom of religion is than what has traditionally been held in the United States with its First Amendment. Perhaps the U.S. Bishops would like to follow the Chinese Communist model of religion; afterall, there are four times as many people in China then there are citizens of the United States, and the former's view is much more "modern" than ours which dates back centuries.
I agree that these, if not most, death penalties should be commuted to life sentences. I agree with the Vatican line that the implementation of the death penalty should be a rare event and should only be applied to those who pose a continuing threat to civilized society even if they were to be incarcerated. However, trashing the rule of law and democratic priniciples is not an acceptable outcome
If Senator Byrd wishes to attack enemies of freedom, he should focus his attacks on the Court and the leadership of his party and not the Republican leadership in the Senate. The USCCB should join him.
This concept first reared its ugly head in the debates over the Brown v. Board of Education in which desegregaton was eventually found to be unconstitutional by a unanimous court. Justice Stanley Reed was rightly concerned with the novel idea that judges could find for any outcome that they personally found agreeable regardless of what the law actually stated.
Now I am not about to condemn the outcome of the Court's decision in the aforementioned case. I do think I could have crafted a decision (gee, aren't I humble!) that would have achieved the same outcome but would have been more traditionally and constitutionally sound. However, since I cannot go back in time and influence the Supreme Court, I must stick with the current crisis of the court.
The Supreme Court's juvenile death penalty decision is a perfect example of krytocracy. The Court decided, on a 5-4 vote, that their vision of right and wrong, influenced by world opinion and legal precedents of other countries, is more important that the rightfully enacted laws of the states in question.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should be alarmed and not gratified by the outcome. Krytocracy is the enemy of freedom including the freedom of religion. There is nothing that would stop the Court from deciding that some government has a better idea on what freedom of religion is than what has traditionally been held in the United States with its First Amendment. Perhaps the U.S. Bishops would like to follow the Chinese Communist model of religion; afterall, there are four times as many people in China then there are citizens of the United States, and the former's view is much more "modern" than ours which dates back centuries.
I agree that these, if not most, death penalties should be commuted to life sentences. I agree with the Vatican line that the implementation of the death penalty should be a rare event and should only be applied to those who pose a continuing threat to civilized society even if they were to be incarcerated. However, trashing the rule of law and democratic priniciples is not an acceptable outcome
If Senator Byrd wishes to attack enemies of freedom, he should focus his attacks on the Court and the leadership of his party and not the Republican leadership in the Senate. The USCCB should join him.
