Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000325A
|
00:29 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:30 This is a program bringing you news, 00:32 views, discussion, analysis, up-to-date information 00:36 on religious liberty around the world 00:38 and in the United States often a special focus there. 00:41 My name is Lincoln Steed, I'm editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:45 And my guest is Gregory Hamilton, 00:47 President of the North Pacific... 00:51 Northwest. Northwest. 00:52 That's why I threw whistle. 00:53 Northwest Religious Liberty Association. 00:57 You've been on this program before and welcome back. 00:59 Thank you. 01:01 You and I were talking about traveling a lot. 01:03 And my family don't like it, 01:06 but I'm traveling most weekends. 01:08 And only a few weeks ago, I was in Detroit. 01:11 And Detroit always for me is Motown. 01:13 Oh, yes. 01:15 And Motown always for me, 01:16 when I was growing up was the Supremes. 01:17 And I can still hear them singing. 01:19 I hear a symphony. 01:21 But, you know, when I think about the Supremes now, 01:23 it's not so symphonic, no so nice a tune, 01:28 because there's been a lot of split decisions 01:32 from our Supreme Court. 01:33 The issue of who's going to replace, 01:37 who has become incredibly contentious. 01:40 And I think that the general populace are being conditioned 01:44 on the idea that this is a very partisan, 01:47 biased, proxy organization 01:51 where the parties can fight their battles 01:53 and get their way with it. 01:55 Is this all correct? Well, sure. 01:56 Then how should we be looking at this wrinkle? 01:58 Well, if you're anti-abortion 02:04 or pro-life, that's the way to put it, 02:08 and you are for the free exercise of religion, 02:15 but in a Catholic definition of it, 02:17 which means, the free exercise of religion only, 02:19 not the constitutional separation of church and state, 02:24 then you would be for a Republican candidate, 02:27 okay. 02:28 We already have five Catholics on the Supreme Court. 02:32 Justice Scalia, Antonin Scalia just died. 02:34 We actually had six, with three Jews on it. 02:38 And so, you know, the likelihood 02:41 of getting either another Catholic or someone 02:43 who has a Catholic perspective worldview, 02:47 so the speak, on natural law 02:50 and in their view of religious freedom, 02:52 which by the way is a very recent view 02:55 going back to 1962 at Vatican II, 02:58 put together by John Courtney Murray, 03:02 who is a Monsignor... 03:03 Dignitatis humanae? 03:05 Dignitatis humanae, and his document, 03:07 the first time the Catholic Church 03:09 accepted religious freedom. 03:11 And that was interesting, because in that document... 03:15 I should... 03:17 something Catholics particularly watching much. 03:19 Yes. 03:20 Challenge that, but I was at a conference, 03:22 where Congressman Senator 03:27 Cowden O'Dolan was speaking. 03:30 And he stopped in the middle of his speech, 03:33 and he said, after he'd spoken nicely about religious liberty. 03:36 He said, "You know, there was a time 03:38 when we wouldn't speak this way on religious liberty. 03:40 We once held that era has no rights." 03:44 That was the default setting. 03:45 And in the following explanation, 03:47 the Catholic audience in attendance 03:49 were told exactly what you just said, it 03:51 was Vatican II and Dignitatis humanae that changed it all. 03:55 Well, their church law constantly butted up 03:58 against our American constitutional law. 04:00 And they had the hardest time with that, 04:02 but they eventually have adjusted to that. 04:04 Yeah. 04:05 And in fact, Vatican II being more or less a document 04:08 that made them more Protestant than they were before. 04:10 Yeah. 04:12 So essentially, liberalizing the church. 04:14 And so now you have a pope, Pope Francis, 04:17 who clearly is trying to carry on Vatican II, 04:20 but he is getting a lot of resistance. 04:21 But back to the Supreme Court factor, 04:23 voting and the Supreme Court factor. 04:25 We've talked about voting in the previous two segments, 04:29 but the Supreme Court is a major issue, 04:33 because when a president is elected, 04:36 they have the right to nominate and reshape the court. 04:40 As vacancies occur. 04:42 As vacancies occur. 04:43 And what's interesting in the constitution right now, 04:45 at least, as it's being interpreted 04:46 by various scholars, 04:48 is this idea that if the Senate continues to block 04:53 any chance of hearing the nomination 04:55 of Merrick Garland, Judge Merrick Garland 04:58 by President Barack Obama, all right, 05:01 in the current, his last term, 05:05 so to speak as president. 05:08 Clearly, President Obama was elected by the people. 05:12 So the argument that says, "Well, we want for the people 05:15 to decide at the election time." 05:17 And then, the next president should determine 05:20 who the next Supreme Court justice. 05:22 That's not what the Constitution says. 05:24 No, there's nothing about the people, 05:25 the president nominates. 05:27 Not only that but the Senate does have the right 05:29 in the Constitution to advice and consent. 05:32 But it says, the president has a right to nominate, okay, 05:37 and appoint and the appointment comes at the end. 05:41 The middle part of that says 05:43 that the Senator has the right to advice and consent. 05:45 But if the Senate doesn't follow through 05:47 with their constitutional duty to advice 05:50 and consent by holding a hearing, 05:52 it suggests in that article, 05:55 I think it's an article to the powers of the presidency. 06:00 It suggests that the president has a right to go ahead 06:03 and appoint anyway. 06:05 Now that obviously won't be taken seriously 06:07 by any congressman, but the point is, 06:10 is that a number of scholars are bringing this up. 06:12 And I doubt if President Obama will do that. 06:16 He'll probably assume that Hillary Clinton will be elected 06:20 and Hillary Clinton would either go on and nominate, 06:24 continue to nominate Merrick Garland, 06:26 which I think she would or a more progressive candidate, 06:29 which I would hope she would not. 06:31 I would want a centrist, okay, 06:33 that believes both in the free exercise of religion 06:36 and the constitutional separation of church and state. 06:38 But back to this Catholic document Dignitatis humanae 06:43 by John Courtney Murray at Vatican II. 06:47 The statement promotes the free exercise of religion and says, 06:51 "We believe in the free exercise of religion, 06:54 but it's purposely silent, in fact, 06:56 even dismissive of the constitutional separation 07:00 of church and state in the American model. 07:03 Well, there's a certain irony. 07:05 Yes, I agree with you in this ambiguity, 07:08 but it's a total document, it's a great improvement 07:12 on the Council of Trent certainly... 07:14 Certainly. 07:16 Which was consciously against Protestantism 07:18 and free choice and so on. 07:24 There's an irony at the moment that the religious 07:27 Protestant religious right are not just dismissive, 07:31 they're the venom toward 07:34 the First Amendment separation of church 07:36 and state is palpable and stated regularly. 07:40 So as far as separation of church and state, 07:43 the politically active as Protestant factions 07:46 don't believe in it. 07:47 The Catholic Church openly state that they believe 07:51 in the separation of church and state. 07:53 So what you're saying is somewhat true, 07:56 but not by what they say, 07:58 because it's their qualification is dangerous, 08:00 they believe in the separation of church and state. 08:02 But on the principle of subsidiarity, 08:06 and that the state is subsidiary to the church. 08:10 Right. 08:11 Well, to me, that's just the old 08:13 Middle Ages view stated differently. 08:16 That yes, they are separate, but when push comes to show 08:18 if the church is superior, and the pope in his speech 08:22 the other day did spoke about mutual. 08:24 Oh no, not mutual, oh, 08:28 what was the word, but reciprocal subsidiarity. 08:32 I mean that's quite dangerous 08:33 when the church and the state are... 08:35 Instead of dominating, 08:37 it's church and state working together. 08:38 Working together, that's the Middle Ages. 08:40 Right. 08:41 So these are important principles, 08:44 but it's not as simple as the Catholic Church 08:47 isn't for the separation of church and state. 08:50 We have a very muddy playing field 08:53 I think from all religious factions at the moment 08:57 in maintaining a true separation of church and state 09:00 and religious freedom in the United States. 09:01 Oh, absolutely. 09:03 These are dangerous times. 09:04 And you're right, 09:05 the Supreme Court has become the big chessboard 09:08 for a lot of what's going on with the parties, 09:10 and the different factions. 09:11 But it troubles me, you know, 09:13 I shouldn't keep reminding people. 09:15 I live longer in the U.S. 09:16 than most everybody, but I came from Australia, 09:19 and I still sort of look at it from a different point, 09:22 and I don't see the Supreme Court 09:25 as intended to be a political playing field... 09:31 nor do. You know... 09:33 why is this rush to, you know, 09:37 to get a balance or to put progressive, 09:39 conservative, so whatever on. 09:42 And at least in the long sweep of history, 09:45 there's not a clear correspondence 09:47 between the faction that put that person 09:50 on the court and how they voted. 09:52 So we're assuming 09:54 that they go under the court now as Protestant. 09:56 But it hasn't always functioned that way, 09:59 and it clearly wasn't intended to be, 10:01 it was part of the three elements 10:04 of the government with the checks and balances. 10:08 Well, that's true to a point, but you have to remember 10:10 when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, 10:13 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist, 10:15 the chief justice died. 10:17 George W. Bush, President George W. Bush 10:19 had an opportunity... 10:21 He stacked the deck a bit. 10:22 Huge, he stacked the deck with the chief justice 10:23 with John Roberts 10:26 and then with the appointment of Samuel Alito 10:32 both Catholics, devout Catholics 10:34 and really stacking the court in terms of a conservative tilt 10:38 with Justice Antonin Scalia leading the way, 10:41 making it more or less a five four 10:43 conservative majority, 10:45 but with Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote 10:48 tending to go liberal, most of the time, 10:52 in fact, he was the swing vote in the over Felecia decision 10:55 which gave a same sex marriage, legalized it, 10:58 based upon the fourteenth Amendment's 11:00 Equal Protection Clause. 11:02 But right now with the absence of a justice 11:07 with Antonin Scalia's death in New Mexico. 11:10 This means split decisions will become deadlock decisions. 11:12 Either split decisions or it's like in the Zoobic case 11:17 involving the little sisters of the road 11:21 involving the whole contraception mandate 11:27 and Obama's healthcare law. 11:31 This idea that, you know, 11:33 they won't have to comply with federal mandate. 11:37 That whole issue has been set by the Supreme Court 11:41 back to the federal courts to discuss it 11:44 and basically try to come up with, 11:48 you know, basically more talking points, 11:50 more decisions for them to feed on and chew on, 11:54 because it will circulate back to the U.S. Supreme Court of... 11:58 Let me throw a real wild card into the discussion, 12:00 but I read enough to know my stuff, 12:02 I bet it's not a wild statement. 12:04 I think greater than the party bias 12:10 of the justices is what's happened 12:13 for a few decades through the law schools. 12:16 There is a radical shift in how they see religion particularly, 12:22 and even extremely activist view 12:28 of the role of the judiciary 12:30 that I think it's out of line with the historical norms 12:33 Well, they came to that, because they thought 12:36 that the Warren Court back in the 50s and 60s, 12:39 talking about Chief Justice Earl Warren, 12:42 who was former governor of California, 12:44 former vice presidential running mate. 12:46 When he, you know, sat on the Supreme Court 12:49 very much became a social justice type, 12:52 Supreme Court justice gave us the civil rights. 12:56 Basically coincided with the Civil Rights movement, 12:58 gave us Brown versus Board of Education, 13:00 and the segregation in schools, 13:02 etcetera, etcetera. 13:03 And the Christian right and the conservative right 13:05 didn't like that. 13:07 Justice Scalia who was just an attorney 13:10 at a law firm in Cleveland didn't like that at the time 13:13 and so on, so these attitudes very much pervaded, 13:17 and they accused them Justice Earl Warren, 13:20 Justice Brennan and others of being judicial activists 13:24 so to speak, and so... 13:26 Yeah, that's facades, but I think 13:27 from the law schools that is the reality. 13:29 And so, really wouldn't matter 13:31 less and less what faction they're from, 13:34 this is the growing view of the judiciary. 13:35 Right. Right. 13:37 And my solution before the break 13:40 and some interesting talking point. 13:42 Who says they have to be judges anyway. 13:47 I've read the Constitution, and I know the history, 13:49 there's been people that are just 13:50 in public life being put on it. 13:52 Right. 13:53 And that could bring it back more to a, 13:55 an ideological norm. 13:56 We'll be back after the break 13:57 to continue this discussion of the Supremes, 14:00 not the musical group, but the judges, the justices. |
Revised 2016-07-28