Posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:46 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Senate's number two Democrat said Sunday that if Judge John Roberts doesn't recognize that the Constitution's right to privacy covers the Roe vs Wade abortion decision, it would "disqualify" him from serving on the Supreme Court.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if President Bush had "the same right" to appoint pro-life justices that President Clinton had to appoint pro-choice justices, Durbin at first insisted, "I'm not looking for a litmus test."
"As important as reproductive rights and women's rights are, I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed.
Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."
Asked whether he intended to question Roberts directly about his position on Roe vs Wade, Durbin said, "I'm going to get very specific. But I've had an experience with him before. He didn't get very specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals."
Turbin Durbin holds his hatred of life views on more than one subject I see.
Is anyone who disagrees with the "Dred Scott" decision not eligible to sit on the Court?
Boy are the Senators especially Turbin stupid. It would be unethical for Roberts to answer such a question. But, then since when have Dum/Lawyer/Senators been ethical.
They are in self destruct mode, stand back!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Good point.
There is a very simple answer to this. How can a judicial nominee say how he/she would rule on a case? If they did, they would have pre-judged the case.
I saw that... just shook my head hit the clicker.
FWIW, Durbin was on TV this morning again spouting the line that judges should not make law. His main concern seems to be that Roberts would oppose the "Roe v. Wade Act" passed by Congress.
The Left willfully confuses rights with wants and (through the MSM) has lowered the public's IQ on the entire issue.
Yes there is more than one Ass that is bigger than Durbin. And I'm not talking about physical size. Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, and Reid. How's that for a start?
Why hasn't a Cardinal determined that Durbin is unfit to be a Catholic?
Turbin Durbin and Ted the swimmer are to catholicism what pro peace muslims are to Islam. NON PRACTICING I believe is the polite term.
NO but he has many equals, Kennedy, The exalted Cyclops, Harry Reid...should I continue
But in Illinois he is a main stay cause the Illinois VFW those old Nazis gave him a standing O.
You should include polygamy along with your siblings
Agree.
Someone needs to tell Dean that the Democrats have rejected the idea of inclusion of pro-Life Democrats to the party.
Durbin is irrelvant anyway. his vote isn't needed to confirm or end a filibuster. It's the RINO's we need on hand, and if we can scare some 'red' state Dems up for election in '08 all the better.
English Dictionary.
Judge:
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2 : to sit in judgment on
3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
But, according to Durbin a Judge must have a 'pre-concieved' opinion, one opinion only, one belief only, in order to be a Judge.
In Durbin's world, we don't need Judges, we simply feed the case into a computer and it spits out a decision. Absolutly a socialist perspective and contempt of freedom of thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.