The work of our tireless founder, Dr. Robert P. George, was recently recognized in Poland.

Here is an excerpt from the official press release:

Princeton University legal philosopher and constitutional scholar Robert George has been awarded the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland, which recognizes outstanding achievement in the field of human rights.

Marek Zubik of the Office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection, bestowed the medal in a ceremony May 4 at the University of Warsaw, after which George delivered the 2010 Petrazycki Lecture in legal philosophy on "Natural Law, God and Human Dignity."  In attendance were the Chief Justice and several Associate Justices of the Polish Constitutional Court together with many other dignitaries. The Defense of Human Rights medal was established by the President of Poland.

... In conferring the Human Rights medal on Professor George, Dr. Zubik noted that Poland recognizes the importance of intellectual as well as political work in defense of human rights, and praised George’s writings for identifying grounds of rational principle for honoring the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family.

Prof. George wrote to us from Poland last week and noted that about 150 people were in attendance at the Hall of the Senate of the University of Warsaw where the ceremony took place.

Among Prof. George's other honors are the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Bradley Prize for Intellectual and Civic Achievement, the Philip Merrill Award for Distinguished Contributions to the Liberal Arts, and honorary doctorates of law, ethics, letters, science, civil law, humane letters, and juridical science.

APP expresses its gratitude to our friends and collaborators in Poland!

Actually we thought this world meeting of "nations that respect my leadership" would attract more leaders...

Submit your own humorous caption in the comment box!

Photo: White House Flickr

APP contributor Michael Fragoso returns with a judicious observation.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank trained his fire (no pun intended) at Justice Scalia’s approach to the 2nd Amendment this week.  In his words:

The liberal justices tried to re-argue their losing position in the Heller case. Stevens asked about a "right to parade around the streets with guns." Breyer asked if a city can't ban guns even if the ban is "saving hundreds of lives."

Scalia replied: "We don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics."

No, we resolve them on the basis of Scalia's judicial activism.

Leaving aside the merits of the 2nd Amendment argument advanced in both Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago (which is the case now before the Supreme Court), Milbank’s implications are very curious.

According to Milbank, Scalia is a “judicial activist” for wanting to resolve gun cases based on rights claims rather than the cost-benefit analysis of legislative policy making.  Fair enough, I suppose.  The same point was implied when Justice Breyer said in the McDonald oral arguments:

Justice Breyer:  Now, think of this, too: That when you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life. Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life. Statistics, balancing life versus guns. How are Federal judges in your opinion, rather than legislatures in the States in a Federal system, how are Federal judges supposed to carry this out? I want to see where we are going. (At p.14 ln.19 -p.15 ln.4)

So it is improper, in Justice Breyer’s view, for judges to assert a right that legislatures decide ought to be balanced out against human life.  The question before the Court, then, is less about the abstract right to bear arms than it is a legislative balancing test between gun ownership and safety/human life.

One would hope Justice Breyer would apply the same standard when the rights claim before the Court is the "liberty interest in abortion on one hand and human life on the other.  There are copious data on the abortion rate, the negative effects of abortion, the societal effects of abortion, and (it should go without saying) the human lives of the unborn.  In other words, “statistics, balancing life versus [abortion].” Thorny business, that.  How, then, it might be asked of Justice Breyer, are “Federal judges...rather than legislatures in the States in a Federal system...supposed to carry this out?”

I eagerly await Dana Milbank’s denunciation of “judicial activism” when Justice Breyer manages to distinguish his deference to legislatures when it comes to abortion.

APP Communications Director Thomas Peters is published over at the Daily Caller today, on the lessons to be learned on both sides from Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts: 

Did the pro-life movement ... sell their souls to help Brown win, and fight for the better outcome?

The most common charge against the pro-life movement these days, especially when that movement is involved in politics and elections, is that it is actually a front of the Republican Party (never mind the fact that the pro-choice movement lumps the vast majority of its money and resources behind the Democratic party candidates). This pro-Republicanism is how liberals explain the pro-life movement’s support of both John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and their incongruous support of Scott Brown (a pro-choicer) in the 2010 Massachusetts senate race: they’re both Republicans.

But the common thread between these two decisions is far more disarmingly simple: Brown and McCain, while not perfect from the perspective of the pro-life movement, were better pro-life choices than their respective alternatives. [Read the rest.]

[By Nick Arnold]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Wednesday that the House of Representatives would be unable to reach an agreement on a sweeping healthcare reform bill unless it were “fixed” by the Senate reconciliation process, which requires 51 votes rather than 60 for budgetary matters, before they were asked to vote on it, introducing new complications into an already twisted debate on the issue.

Senior Democratic Senator Aids have already weighed in to cast doubts on the viability of such a strategy, pointing out that under Pelosi’s suggestion they would be using the reconciliation procedure to pass amendments on a measure which had not yet become law, an act almost unheard of in federal circles.

Also of concern is the fact that in sending the bill back to the Senate for modification, Pelosi may have just placed the bill in an arena particularly vulnerable to GOP intervention: Republican Congressmen reported this week that if Senate Democrats agree to use reconciliation, a loophole in Senate rules allowing Senators the right to file unlimited amendments to the bill before the final vote will be employed.

By employing this, Republicans hope to create a sort of “pseudo-filibuster” by submitting a constant stream of amendments to delay a final vote, thus forcing a war of attrition in which moderate and “blue dog” Democratic Senators are forced to eye their constituents, who are becoming increasingly skeptical of the bill as the November elections approach. With this strategy currently employed in the Senate, it could be that the bill would have had a better chance had Pelosi continued to pursue a House compromise.

Mr. Arnold is pursuing a Masters at George Washington University in their campaign management school, and is interning for APP.

[By Greg Chaufen]

With each passing day, legislators have been able to find a number of hidden policies tucked away in the health care bill as they are given more time to read through the hundreds of pages of bureaucratic language

An example of one such radical policy cleverly buried in the Senate version of the bill is the requirement for the Secretary to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.”

This section of the bill is responsible for detailing the necessary data that is to be collected and analyzed; however, the usual distinction of sex as “male” or “female” is notably absent.

In place of the male/female distinction, the Secretary is charged with developing a new standard to measure gender.

The term “gender” has been generally used by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community to identify varying sexual orientations and is defined in a large part by behavior and psychological traits of each person.

This new distinction attempts to change the focus of a person’s identity away from the male/female distinction, and opt for a newer and yet-to-be-determined standard for gender that may change according to each person’s behavior and psychology.

Here is the section in question (emphasis added):

“SEC. 3301. DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND QUALITY.

(a) DATA COLLECTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that, by not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, any ongoing or federally conducted or supported health care or public health program, activity or survey collects and reports—

(B) data on gender, geographic location, socioeconomic status (including education, employment or income), primary language, and, disability status data for applicants, recipients, or beneficiaries;

(2) COLLECTION STANDARDS.—In collecting data described in paragraph (1), the Secretary or designee shall—

(B) develop standards for the measurement of gender, geographic location, socioeconomic status, primary language and disability measures;”

In this morning's Wall Street Journal, William McGurn interviews APP founder Robert George after posing the question: "Why was Samuel Alito's Catholicism so much more discussed than Sonia Sotomayor's?"

"... the relatively soft reaction to Ms. Sotomayor's Catholicism [by Democrats] is because of a calculation that when it comes to hot-button issues such as abortion or gay marriage, she doesn't really believe what her church teaches.

Robert George [founder of the American Principles Project] says the Sotomayor hearings highlight a glaring double standard about how the Catholicism of judicial nominees is treated -- and the great irony this treatment exposes.

"According to one theory of jurisprudence," says Mr. George, "the judge may not bring his own moral beliefs or personal feelings to bear on his rulings on what the law is. This is the view held by people like Scalia and Alito and Roberts."

This means that a judge who is personally pro-life can uphold a pro-choice law -- and a judge who is personally pro-choice can uphold a pro-life law. What matters is the law, not the personal feelings. When judges follow this path, they take some of the heat out of culture wars. That's because those who want to change the law -- pro-life or pro-choice -- have to do it the way our Founders intended: through their elected representatives.

"The other theory of jurisprudence," the professor told me, "holds that the judge has a responsibility to bring his or her moral beliefs to cases. This is famously defended by scholars such as Ronald Dworkin, and practiced by judges such as William Brennan and John Paul Stevens."

"Among the many problems with this view is that it leads inexorably to the politicization of the judicial process. If someone expects us to accept this theory as a legitimate judicial philosophy, then he or she has to be prepared to answer questions about what his or her moral beliefs or personal feelings are -- and where they come from."

"Yet here's the irony. The same people who feel no compunction in trying to use the Catholicism of an Alito or Pryor to raise suspicions about their suitability then cry foul when anyone demands to know the basis of the moral convictions and personal feelings of someone that a liberal Democratic president is trying to place on the Supreme Court."

If the indifference to Ms. Sotomayor's Catholicism were truly a sign of a new respect for the "no religious test" provisions of the Constitution, that would be something to celebrate. But in the unlikely case that this "wise Latina" ever comes to see the legal wisdom of overturning Roe and returning abortion to the democratic process, we'll be reading a very different story.

[Read the full story here.]

Yesterday legal scholar Gerry Bradley jump-started APP's "Sotomayor Central" with an article titled "Empathy".

Today he follows-up with a second article titled "What to ask Judge Sotomayor About Same-Sex Marriage":

As far as I know Sonya Sotomayor has not revealed, even by implication or strong suggestion, how she might rule on a constitutional claim for same-marriage. I know that she has not really tipped her hand on abortion, either.  But I think that the President’s conspicuous, and strong, pro-choice views support the inference that Sotomayor will support abortion rights, perhaps even avidly.  Obama has promised and can be expected to deliver that much to his backers.

On the other huge moral issue of our day – same-sex marriage – things are not so clear. For one thing, the President’s own views are more subtle and, perhaps, more confused, than they are on abortion. President Obama says that he favors civil unions but that he opposes same-sex marriage. He never criticizes, however, any decision – such as those recently in New Hampshire and Iowa – which legalizes same-sex marriage. He is going slow on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell) policy.  His Justice Department is defending DOMA in California litigation, even as the President told gay supporters last week that he wants to repeal that law. And the President has made no promises about his nominee on this issue.     What information should our Senators seek from Sotomayor about her intentions regarding same-sex marriage? [Read on...]

Gerard V. Bradley is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.

This morning, as the Sotomayor hearings begin, Legal scholar Gerry Bradley jump-starts APP's "Sotomayor Central" with an article titled "Empathy":

Today’s first round of hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be a bit tedious.  Much of the day will be taken up with the Senators’ opening statements.   These will probably include some real insights and lessons.  But, unfortunately, these gems will be obscured by the usual ration of senatorial bloviating and preening.  Then we should expect Judge Sotomayor to deliver her opening statement.  This is her chance to tell her “story”.  Sotomayor is no bloviator, and her “story” is indeed remarkable, even compelling.  The tedium here will owe to repetition, for even the details of her life and learning and work have been rehearsed many times in the media.  See, just for example, the extensive profile of Sotomayor in last Friday’s New York Times.

I shall nonetheless receive Sotmayor’s story with, well, great empathy.  As the immortal Yogi Berra would say, it will be “like deja vu, all over again”.  That is because (yes), I have by now read about Sotmayor’s life several times.  But it will also be because the main outlines of her story are mine too. [Read on...]

Gerard V. Bradley is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.

From Public Discourse:

Recently, the editor of Public Discourse Ryan Anderson sat down with APP Founder Robert George to discuss the state of the marriage debate.

While supporters of same-sex “marriage” claim that history is on their side, it turns out that supporters of traditional marriage have more reasons for hope than they may realize.

A sample question:

PD: What is the struggle over the legal recognition of same-sex unions a struggle about? Is it about legal benefits? Or is it about something else?

George: It’s about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, I’m sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex “marriage” activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label “marriage” or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

Read the rest at Public Discourse.

[editorial note: Steven Lindsay was in the gallery during today's Supreme Court session, and has provided APP with this report.]

This morning the Supreme Court of the United States, during its final session before the annual summer recess, released its long-awaited opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case dealt with a group of New Haven firefighters seeking promotions based on test scores that were later discarded by New Haven because the “results showed the tests to be discriminatory.”

The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the tests had discriminated against minorities based on their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court reversed that decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court’s majority in the 5-4 case, held that, “a minimal standard could cause employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional examinations even where there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination.” This “de facto quota system” would then run counter to the clear purpose of Title VII.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading her dissent from the bench, asserted that the administration of both oral and written components yielded “significant racial disparities” among the test-takers. She also claimed that the white firefighters had “no vested right to promotion” and that the Court failed “to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.”

It is of note that the Court refrained from deciding whether or not the disputed provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are constitutionally permitted by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also important to acknowledge that the Court’s decision in Ricci overturns the 2nd Circuit ruling of which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the majority.