Posted on 07/25/2005 9:16:13 AM PDT by leftcoaster
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion.
However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.
The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral.
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.
It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (To his credit, Roberts did not say that his faith would control in such a case).
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Not sure if this really happened as portrayed, as Turley's two sources are both heresay and may be embellishing the exchange from Durbin's POV in order to damage Roberts.
Didn't Judge Thomas recently recuse himself from some case?
If he recuses himself, he is not violating his oath, anyway. What's with Turley, surely he knows that.
If it is true that Durbin asked questions about Robert's relgion's effect on his job, then Durbin violated Article 6, Clause 3, last sentence of the U.S. Constitution, and Durbin should be impeached:
" . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
"What's with Turley, surely he knows that."
I think you're giving him a lot more credit
than he deserves.
Not near as damaging as the comments I've made to Turb'n Durbin!
Why do we have Roberts meet with a scumbag traitor like Turban Durbin? It was a bad decision.
We don't need his vote. He can go to Hell.
What ruling would the church consider immoral that is required by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Serious question.
You don't impeach Senators. They are typically removed by vote of the other members.
However it works.
I am just amazed that I have heard no conservative voices point Article VI, Clause 3 out to all these no-Christians-for-the-court Democrats and MSM
It should be the canned response to all such inquiries.
If the Dems want to make that argument, please let them.
The last time that happened was in 1862, when an Indiana Democrat was expelled for writing a letter addressed to "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States."
Not just RCs, but any serious Christian (or even serious Jew, really).
I can't think of any, off the top of my head. Perhaps something dealing with the death penalty or war powers are all that I can suggest, without further research. ( I am a practicing Catholic myself.)
Now, if you have to look thru the pneumbra in order to find something constitutional in conflict with The Church, you certainly aren't any kind of strict constitutionalist anyway.
Exactly.
If he considers this significant, I don't think we should shrug it off.
Turley is a moron. He was 100% wrong in all of his predictions in Bush v Gore. He is brilliant in his own mind. What a tool.
So exactly why, John-boy Turley, is it "the wrong answer"??
Sounds like EXACTLY THE RIGHT answer to me??
I learn something new here every day. Thanks guys.
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.