Culture of Life Lies, Volume VII(a) (Habeas Corpus is for Pussies, and Catholics, Except on the Supreme Court, Edition)

So, every four years one of the biggest things at stake is the determination of who may get to select the next Supreme Court Justice (or two). This issue is usually framed in terms of how each Presidential candidate's prospective Court nominees will deal with abortion; Specifically, whether they'll vote to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade.

The GOP tries to convince the sheeple that they'll nominate good and Godly Justices who'll respect the cultrrrralaf. Of course, we all know that that respect for life begins at conception and ends at birth.

What the GOP really wants are Justices who'll uphold their "unitary executive" power-grab, to essentially allow the President to carve out for himself a sphere where he's beyond any Constitutional and statutory restrains, simply by invoking "national security". Yesterday's Supreme Court Gitmo decision proves that, with George Bush's two Justices, Roberts and Alito, dissenting.

So, let's see how that dissent fits with the true "culture of life" as explained by the Church.

First of all, the Church recognizes the responsibility of the State to defend its citizens, but insists that

In a State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the Courts; 'In defining the proper relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the Constitutions of modern States guarantee the judicial power the necessary independence in the realm of law.' (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church at Para. 402, quoting JPII's Address to the Italian Association of Judges)(emphasis in original).

Further,

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: 'Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim.'

Likewise ruled out is 'the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial.' Moreover, it must be ensured that 'trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in real injustice.'" Id. at Para 404 (emphasis added).

Well, you might ask, isn't Terrorism different? NO.

This right [to defend oneself from terrorism] cannot be exercised in the absence of moral and legal norms, because the struggle against terrorists must be carried out with respect for human rights and for the principles of a State ruled by law. The identification of the guilty party must be duly proven, because criminal responsibility is always personal, and therefore cannot be extended to the religions, nations or ethnic groups to which the terrorists belong.

Why? In addition to the moral requirement to respect the dignity of all human beings . . .

The recruitment of terrorists in fact is easier in situations where rights are trampled and injustices are tolerated over a long period of time." Id at Para 514.

If you read Justice Kennedy's Majority opinion from yesterday's decision, you'll see that the ruling is fully in line with all of these principles that the Church insists upon.

The four Justices who dissented? Four Catholics appointed by Republican Presidents.

Maybe the Chief Justice should spend a little less time in the closet and more time in the Confession booth.