Questions You Will Never Hear Asked of Prof. Kagan at her Hearing to Confirm Her to be on the Supreme Court

Do you consider it possible to read minds of impulsive, intoxicated people long after a crime?

What is the main purpose of the criminal law, indeed of government? Do you believe we are achieving that purpose?

You were dean of a top law school. Do you believe education or indoctrination was taking place at your school? Is it possible to make intelligent modern people believe in supernatural doctrines without indoctrination techniques?

If the words, intent, element, culpability and others could be shown to come from the Catholic Church catechism sections on mortal sin, would their use in a trial or any legal utterance violate the Establishment Clause? If these could not shown to exist in nature, but are fictitious, pretextual, church inventions, would that violate the Establishment Clause?

Are you aware of any data showing current methods, such as plea bargaining, trials, and jury verdicts have any validity or even any reliability (repeatability)?

After the first secret ballot of the jury, don't all subsequent votes reflect the views of the most domineering member, and the rest who want to go home?

Explain the justification for impeaching an experienced judge for looking into the facts of a case on his own.

Can you explain why crime rates are so low where the lawyer lives, and so high where the lawyer works? Can you explain why there are 20 million serious crimes a year, and 2 million prosecutions?

Do you pledge to edit your decisions to the sixth grade reading level?

Do you plan to continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies in third term abortions, without parental consent?

Are you a homosexual, a lesbian? Do the tyrannical tendencies of such individuals affect their fitness to serve on the court for the next several decades?

If over 100,000 missing persons reports cannot be resolved each year, is it possible, the murder rate is really 70,000 and not 17,000?

Where is it you have trouble grasping, the deceased have a low recidivism rate, and those with life without parole have been granted absolute immunity for all crimes after the first murder.

Please, read out loud Article I Section 1 of our constitution. Does judicial review violate that section in any way?

Catechism Content of the Common Law in Modern Times

None of these terms is permissible in the law of our secular nation, and they are prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

46-47: Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty.

[Reason is the ability of man to perceive the Trinity and God. Reasonable is the most frequent, core concept of American jurisprudence. One wonders why 100 other words were not selected. Man fell from the Garden of Eden after committing original sin. His intellect, logic are easily fooled by the mortal sins, by jealousy, lust, avarice, greed, selfishness. Only reason is the path to moral conduct. The best guide to moral decision making is the New Testament, the story and words of Jesus Christ. The reasonable person standard in the common law may therefore be lawyer code for Jesus Christ.]

Latin version is the official Catholic Church Catechism, and was published in 1997. Every paragraph has a number.

Sins. Spiritual, against God, against neighbor, and self.

Location of sins. Thoughts. Deeds. And in omission.

Classified by their gravity. From Scripture, experience, and the Tradition of the Church.

Mortal sin analysis has three "elements." These land the person in hell for eternity (1861).
1) grave matter (for example, those specified in the Ten Commandments);
2) full knowledge in advance
3) committed with "complete consent."

Repetition of venial sins reinforces itself. The Seven Deadly Sins lead to others, and are gateway to mortal sin (1863). They include, pride, avarice (greed), envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth (1866).

One may be an accomplice to sin, and be responsible for the sin of another, by direct participation, ordering it, approving it, praising it, or doing nothing to prevent it, or failing to protect the sinner after the fact (1868).