Taking Out

[dairygirl4u2c]

so why doesn't anyone do it?
if we can declare war and kill people, why can't we declare war and kill a justice?
if we're experiencing a holocaust, why wait until the voting process leads us to replacing them?
it seems they are the only way we're going to make progress in that field.

why can't someone declare themself an adequate authority and take them out? the authority bit referring to the just war theory that you must have adequate authority. does it require a bishop to consent to it, and why? the pope was against iraq but bihops trumped him.
and as for reasoable chane of victory, it seems quite plausible that this would expedite the situation. more likely than note, even. perhaps, the dems would take it as a sign to drag their feet in nominations, but maybe not. and in the right congress, probably not. we've never needed a high likihood difference before.

if i lived to be 100, i'll have nothing left to lose, and i'll seriously consider doing it myself if nothing changes by then. yes, i'm a selfish [mod]edit--language--hsm[/mod] for not doing it now. but at least i admit it.

it might lead to other's shooting prolife ones, but maybe not. it's worth a shot. no pun intended.

Edited August 28, 2008 by homeschoolmom

[T-Bone _]

1. It's illegal.
2. The justices are not combatants, they're civilians, so any sort of "Just War Doctrine" wouldn't apply.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that it's illegal isn't a reason. the revolutionary war was illegal, but we did it anyway. many just wars are illegal but you do it anyway.

the second reason is a formidable reason.
i don't see it in the just war criteria, what you mention though about combatants [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War[/url]
it has an intuitive appeal to it, i suppose. though i disagree with it and think there's an intuitive argument against it too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/[/url]
the most recent assassination attempt

[Adrestia]

You have already answered your own question. If it's not worth doing now, it's just not worth doing. If a "selfish [mod]edit--language-hsm[/mod]" were to find it worthwhile, then maybe it would be debatable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/[/url]
the most recent assassination attempt

[Justin86]

The only problem with assassination is we have no guarantee that the person replacing the Justice would be pro-life, and therefore we don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a war.

That Justices are technically "non-combatants" isn't an issue because they are the ones responsible for the law. Under this defintion Hitler was technically a noncombatant during WWII.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1479809' date='Mar 19 2008, 04:55 AM']that it's illegal isn't a reason. the revolutionary war was illegal, but we did it anyway. many just wars are illegal but you do it anyway.[/quote]

Sin should not be excused

[quote name='Justin86' post='1479904' date='Mar 19 2008, 10:07 AM']That Justices are technically "non-combatants" isn't an issue because they are the ones responsible for the law. Under this defintion Hitler was technically a noncombatant during WWII.[/quote]

False, he was commander-in-chief. Civilian judges (i.e. those not involved in courts martial) have no military role, political leaders do.

Edited March 19, 2008 by RandomProddy

[Justin86]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1479913' date='Mar 19 2008, 07:50 PM']False, he was commander-in-chief. Civilian judges (i.e. those not involved in courts martial) have no military role, political leaders do.[/quote]
Our president is also Commander-in-Chief and he is considered a civilian. One does not have to be military to be thought of as Commander-in-Chief.

What is you reference that Hitler even claimed the title, by the way(no, the American Constitution is NOT a legitimate source.)?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1479904' date='Mar 19 2008, 05:07 AM']The only problem with assassination is we have no guarantee that the person replacing the Justice would be pro-life, and therefore we don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a war.[/quote]

Just forget that's it is morally wrong- a mortal sin. It's just that we don't know who would replace the murdered people is a bad thing.

[Justin86]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1480019' date='Mar 20 2008, 12:26 AM']Just forget that's it is morally wrong- a mortal sin. It's just that we don't know who would replace the murdered people is a bad thing.[/quote]
Since legalized abortion is a form a genocide your logic doesn't stand to reason unless you're morally against taking out Hitler as well, or a pacifist.

[Aloysius]

well, as it is, Hitler's crime directly involved his use of the military. He had the military round people up and slaughter them.

The modern crime of abortion does not involve the use of the military; it does not suffice to say 'they are not military' and say they are 'non-combatants'.... were a just war to be waged against the abortion holocaust, combatants would be defined as those who are engaging in the slaughtering of unborn children and those in charge that keep it going.

and I think a reasonable argument could be made that:
pro-choice supreme court justices:abortion clinics::Hitler:concentration camps

a reasonable argument, mind you, but not a concrete one.

just because it is illegal does not mean it is sinful. God's law supersedes man's law, and any law which perpetuates the murder of babies is a law which needs to be overturned, even if it be by bloody war or revolution.

the real moral question is not "is it illegal or not", because the second anyone considered it was a just war there would be no question of following the laws that prohibited that war, it'd be a just war. the question is whether it'd be considered a just war.

All that said, I am not sure that at this stage I could legitimately label justices on a court with the same brush as Hitler. Imagine if Hitler had created a law which permitted Jews to kill themselves or kill each other... ie made it legal for a Jew to kill another Jew... if he had done that rather than send out people to exterminate them, it might've been a different story on whether or not an assassination of Hitler would've been part of a justified war (minus all the questions of invading Poland and the rest of Europe)... the justices did not send out an army of abortion doctors to forcibly take babies from mothers and kill them, they caused a law which allowed mothers to voluntarily go to a doctor who would voluntarily murder the baby. it's a democratized holocaust rather than Hitler's tyrannical holocaust... so simply assassinating the justices might not be justifiable.

it's the paradox of a democratized holocaust that really wrangles us as to how/if a just war could ever properly fight against it. a tyrannical holocaust is easy to know how to fight, cut off the head and the snake will die... but it seems that the democratized holocaust can only be defeated through peaceful democracy... so sadly ineffective when you think about all the evil that is being perpetuated.

[Justin86]

Al,

Legalized abortion is not a democratic law in the United States. It is imposed on us by the courts. Being that Hitler was elected by the popular vote of the German people his Holocaust was actually more democratic then ours. I also fail to see what democracy has to do with just war theory. I don't remember seeing that in Augustine's ideas.

[Justin86]

Oh, and one more thing: Hitler actually did legalize abortion as an option, for Jews only.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Justin86

[Aloysius]

what I mean by calling it "democratic" (in the more theoretical, not political sense) is that the law does not directly murder people... the law allows for people to murder each other.

Hitler was the head of the army, and he ordered the army to go out and slaughter people.
The Supreme Court is not the head of an army of abortion doctors, all it did was make it legal for the abortion doctors to do the slaughtering... the connection is less direct, they cannot be considered in the same position in relation to the abortion holocaust as Hitler could have been in relation to the Jewish holocaust.

the blame rests from the grass-roots upwards to the Supreme Court. It may not be a majority-based law, but it's a grass-roots murder operation. From the bottom down, from the individual mother who decides to kill her baby up to the doctor who offers it up to the top...

this is why I say it has to be defeated with real pure and peaceful democracy, with the people and their elected representatives actually making the laws that stop abortion (and Congress could do that with the We the People Act). It's not that Roe v. Wade is a democratic-majority written law by any means, it's that the action of slaughtering the babies is run democratically whereas the action of the Jewish holocaust was run by a clear-cut military structure.