R.I.P Justice Scalia

[JEdwards]

I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA.

My best guess is that Justice Scalia would have said that legal judgments involving considerations of value should be based on those values embedded in the original text of the relevant documents, legislation or case law.  In that case, contemporary value judgments would be derived, not from the precepts of natural law, but from the antecedent texts and decisions.  I suppose this kind of "originalism" is an exercise in historical sociology rather than an application of the requirements of natural law.  For instance, I suspect Scalia would have assessed what counts as "reasonable accommodation" in the RFRA by scrutinizing the prior trajectory of case law on the subject, not by consulting natural law.  Again, that's my best guess.

Tom Pearson     

I agree with you that this would likely have been Justice Scalia's answer.  I think his goal was to have a judicial philosophy that eliminated or at least minimized subjectivity in judging, and this approach has obvious value.  However, I'm not sure it could ever be completely successful.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides for fines for failure to meet certain standards for securing electronic medical records.  Given the technical challenges of cybersecurity, the increased complexity of medical records, etc., it seems fanciful to suppose that one could identify eighteenth century precedents capable of providing a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the statutory fines are "excessive". 

Jon Edwards

[SomeoneWrites]

I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA.

My best guess is that Justice Scalia would have said that legal judgments involving considerations of value should be based on those values embedded in the original text of the relevant documents, legislation or case law.  In that case, contemporary value judgments would be derived, not from the precepts of natural law, but from the antecedent texts and decisions.  I suppose this kind of "originalism" is an exercise in historical sociology rather than an application of the requirements of natural law.  For instance, I suspect Scalia would have assessed what counts as "reasonable accommodation" in the RFRA by scrutinizing the prior trajectory of case law on the subject, not by consulting natural law.  Again, that's my best guess.

Tom Pearson     

I agree with you that this would likely have been Justice Scalia's answer.  I think his goal was to have a judicial philosophy that eliminated or at least minimized subjectivity in judging, and this approach has obvious value.  However, I'm not sure it could ever be completely successful.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides for fines for failure to meet certain standards for securing electronic medical records.  Given the technical challenges of cybersecurity, the increased complexity of medical records, etc., it seems fanciful to suppose that one could identify eighteenth century precedents capable of providing a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the statutory fines are "excessive". 

Jon Edwards

I agree with what  JEdwards wrote.  I mean, I definitely appreciate minimizing subjectivity, and attempting to make things work with what we think the founding fathers envisioned...
- but so much of what's out there is beyond what they envisioned, lacks precedents, and imposes what we we think they thought, etc etc. 

I'm really for a new constitution at this point, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime. 

[Michael Slusser]

More from Scotusblog:

Meanwhile, the Court indicated that the memorial tribute to Scalia — in the form of black drapes over his chair and at his place on the bench, as well as over the courtroom entrance, will remain in place until March 14.  That is thirty days after his death.

The Justices will leave his place on the bench as is during that time, and thus will not take their new places on the bench — all but the Chief Justice moving to opposite sides — until the tribute is over.  Thus, during the Court's next public sitting, which begins Monday and continues through March 7, the Justices will continue in the seats they have held in recent Terms.

When the memorial period is over, the Justices will take their new seats, for the sitting beginning March 21, and there will be an empty spot at the right side of the bench, reserved for a new, junior Justice if the political branches can agree to provide one.

Peace,
Michael

[James_Gale]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!


I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix.  I wish that other Christian public servants would follow this practice at Christian funerals. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

[James_Gale]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 


As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

[Donald_Kirchner]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I note that the Second Reading for this Sunday (from Revised Common Lectionary), includes the line: "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Phl 3:20) written by a man who was and used his Roman citizenship. As Christians, we should have ways of indicating that our primary citizenship is in heaven, not in the United States. I think that the justice did that. His funeral was a church service and followed the practices of his church.

[Michael Slusser]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

I can confirm that what Pr. Kirchner writes about the flag being replaced by the white pall during Catholic funerals is both correct and required. The pall reflects the person's being joined to Christ in baptism--the "document" in Christ's blood that gives entrance to heaven, our true and eternal homeland.

Peace,
Michael

[LutherMan]

Good sermon, focused on Christ...

[Dave Benke]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 


As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

No matter the differences in ecclesiology; if the local pastor/priest/bishop/archbishop/cardinal grants a request from a pastor/priest/archbishop/cardinal to proclaim and/or celebrate at a funeral Eucharist because of his relationship with the deceased by blood or friendship, that is the prerogative of that local leader.  I have been on the receiving and giving end of that in many instances through the years.

Dave Benke

This Mass seems to me very appropriate and moving in its understanding of life, abundant life and eternal life, and of the Eucharist as Foretaste of the Feast to Come.

[James_Gale]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.


As for the second:  John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and several Supreme Court justices.  It's not a shock that Justice Scalia's family had the flag replaced with a pall.  Given Justice Scalia's piety, it may not even be surprising in his case.  But it is not the normal (most common) practice among public officials.  And therefore worthy of note.

[Donald_Kirchner]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.

As you state, it is a strange action. Perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.Unless, of course, the funeral service is seen as a victory celebration.

[James_Gale]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

I can confirm that what Pr. Kirchner writes about the flag being replaced by the white pall during Catholic funerals is both correct and required. The pall reflects the person's being joined to Christ in baptism--the "document" in Christ's blood that gives entrance to heaven, our true and eternal homeland.

Peace,
Michael

Is this now the consistent practice in Catholic churches?  The funerals for John and Bobby Kennedy (admittedly long ago) most assuredly did not follow it.  I don't believe that the Lutheran funeral for CJ Rehnquist followed it.  The funerals for Presidents Reagan and Ford (at the National Cathedral (Episcopal)) did not follow it.  In any event, my point simply was that this is a good thing and not the norm among major public officials.  If it is now the required practice in Catholic churches, all the better.

[James_Gale]

How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.

I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.

As you state, it is a strange action. Perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.Unless, of course, the funeral service is seen as a victory celebration.

I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.