Skip to comments.
The faith of John Roberts (Turley commentary; claims he made a damaging comment to Senator Durbin)
Los Angeles Times ^
| July 25, 2005
| Jonathan Turley
Posted on 07/25/2005 9:16:13 AM PDT by leftcoaster
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Haven't seen this anywhere else. I got it off Powerline about an hour ago.
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.
To: leftcoaster
Didn't Judge Thomas recently recuse himself from some case?
2
posted on
07/25/2005 9:19:13 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Its a good thing that even when you dismiss the existence of God, he doesn't dismiss you.)
To: leftcoaster
If he recuses himself, he is not violating his oath, anyway. What's with Turley, surely he knows that.
3
posted on
07/25/2005 9:19:36 AM PDT
by
expatpat
To: leftcoaster
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."
To: expatpat
"What's with Turley, surely he knows that."
I think you're giving him a lot more credit
than he deserves.
5
posted on
07/25/2005 9:22:32 AM PDT
by
righttackle44
(The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
To: leftcoaster
Not near as damaging as the comments I've made to Turb'n Durbin!
6
posted on
07/25/2005 9:27:09 AM PDT
by
SwinneySwitch
(Durbin-beyond your expectations! !)
To: leftcoaster
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.
7
posted on
07/25/2005 9:29:03 AM PDT
by
tomahawk
(Proud to be an enemy of Islam (check out www.prophetofdoom.net))
To: leftcoaster
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. What ruling would the church consider immoral that is required by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Serious question.
8
posted on
07/25/2005 9:29:47 AM PDT
by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: MeanWestTexan
Durbin should be impeached: You don't impeach Senators. They are typically removed by vote of the other members.
9
posted on
07/25/2005 9:30:35 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: dirtboy
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.
To: MeanWestTexan
Durbin came dangeriuosly close to suggesting that no practicing Roman Catholic can be confirmed on the bench.
If the Dems want to make that argument, please let them.
To: dirtboy; MeanWestTexan
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."
To: pierrem15
Not just RCs, but any serious Christian (or even serious Jew, really).
To: savedbygrace
What ruling would the church consider immoral that is required by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Serious question.My question too - thanks for airing it. You can bet, that if it is considered immoral by the Christian community/religions, it will not be Constitutional.
14
posted on
07/25/2005 9:39:38 AM PDT
by
trebb
("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
To: savedbygrace
**What ruling would the church consider immoral that is required by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Serious question.**
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.
To: leftcoaster
16
posted on
07/25/2005 9:44:28 AM PDT
by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: leftcoaster
Interesting. Turley described his politics as far, far to the left of Bill Clinton's -- but he's been a very independent, fair, unpredictable thinker.
If he considers this significant, I don't think we should shrug it off.
Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG
17
posted on
07/25/2005 9:44:34 AM PDT
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
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.
18
posted on
07/25/2005 9:45:24 AM PDT
by
Rocket1968
(Durbin must resign - NOW!)
To: leftcoaster
"It was also the wrong answer."
So exactly why, John-boy Turley, is it "the wrong answer"??
Sounds like EXACTLY THE RIGHT answer to me??
To: Grand Old Partisan; MeanWestTexan
I learn something new here every day. Thanks guys.
20
posted on
07/25/2005 9:47:32 AM PDT
by
secret garden
(There's no place like home!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson