The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation: An Exposition and Defense

The purpose of this thesis is to offer both an exposition and defense for the Catholic Church's traditional understanding of eucharistic transubstantiation. I hope to show how a belief in such a doctrine is in no way irrational nor is it indefensible; butinstead, the doctrine of transubstantiation makes sense when it is viewed in light of what Catholic Christians believe about who the human being is, what the human desires, and the special way in which God personally works in human history. The method I am following investigates how the doctrine of transubstantiation coheres with and follows the other beliefs that Catholics hold; that is, beginning with certain presuppositions, there is a certain rational progression to the Catholic understanding of real presence.

The Supreme Court Confirmation Process and Its Implications

In recent history, there has been a trend of increasing partisan polarization throughout most of the American political system. Some of the impacts of this polarization are obvious; however, there is reason to believe that we miss some of the indirect effects of polarization. Accompanying the trend of increased polarization has been an increase in the contentiousness of the Supreme Court confirmation process. I believe that these two trends are related. Furthermore, I argue that these trends have an impact on judicial behavior. This is an issue worth exploring, since the Supreme Court is the most isolated branch of the federal government. The Constitution structured the Supreme Court to ensure that it was as isolated as possible from short-term political pressures and interests. This study attempts to show how it may be possible that those goals are no longer being fully achieved. My first hypothesis in this study is that increases in partisan polarization are a direct cause of the increase in the level of contention during the confirmation process. I then hypothesize that the more contention a justice faces during his or her confirmation process, the more ideologically extreme that justice will then vote on the bench. This means that a nominee appointed by a Republican president will tend to vote even more conservatively than was anticipated following a contentious confirmation process, and vice versa for Democratic appointees. In order to test these hypotheses, I developed a data set for every Supreme Court nominee dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt¿s appointments (1937). With this data set, I ran a series of regression models to analyze these relationships. Statistically speaking, the results support my first hypothesis in a fairly robust manner. My regression results for my second hypothesis indicate that the trend I am looking for is present for Republican nominees. For Democratic nominees, the impacts are less robust. Nonetheless, as the results will show, contention during the confirmation process does seem to have some impact on judicial behavior. Following my quantitative analysis, I analyze a series of case studies. These case studies serve to provide tangible examples of these statistical trends as well as to explore what else may be going on during the confirmation process and subsequent judicial decision-making. I use Justices Stevens, Rehnquist, and Alito as the subjects for these case studies. These cases will show that the trends described above do seem to be identifiable at the level of an individual case. These studies further help to indicate other potential impacts on judicial behavior. For example, following Justice Rehnquist¿s move from Associate to Chief Justice, we see a marked change in his behavior. Overall, this study serves as a means of analyzing some of the more indirect impacts of partisan polarization in modern politics. Further, the study offers a means of exploring some of the possible constraints (both conscious and subconscious) that Supreme Court justices may feel while they decide how to cast a vote in a particular case. Given the wide-reaching implications of Supreme Court decisions, it is important to try to grasp a full view of how these decisions are made.

Under the Crimson Flag: Fahle Burman's Two Trips to the Michigan Supreme Court

Erick Fahle Burman. a Swedish-born, Finnish-speaking labor and political activist, twice had cases argued on his behalf before the Michigan Supreme Court. In People vs. Burman, Burman, along with nine other defendants, had his conviction affirmed by the court and all ten were forced to pay a fine of $25 each for disturbing the peace. In People vs. Immonen, Burman and his co-defendant, Unto Immonen, had their convictions overturned because of improper evidence being admitted in their lower court trial. Though the conviction was overturned, the two men had already spent several months as prisoners at hard labor in Marquette State Prison located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Over twenty-five years separate Burman's two trips to Michigan's high court. On the first occasion, his arrest came less than five years after his arrival as an immigrant to the U. S. On the second occasion, his arrest came less than two years after his return to the state after being away for nearly two decades. On both occasions, Burman was arrested for his involvement with red flags. Though separated by decades, these cases, taken together, are important indicators of the state of Finnish-American radicalism in the years surrounding the red flag incidents and provide interesting insights into the delicacies of political suppression. Examination of these cases within the larger career of Fahle Burman points up his overlooked importance in the history of Finnish-American socialism and communism.