Posted on 07/25/2005 9:16:13 AM PDT by leftcoaster
I've sent it.
Sigh. Very good question.
I've sent it.
Thanks.
Someone should now ask Durbin if he intentionally violated his oath to uphold the Constitution (also in Article VI, Clause 3) or if he is simply ignorant of his duties under it.
What it comes down to is that Turbin Durbin (and the rest of the Rats) prefers judges that have no morals.
Does anyone else find it hard to believe that anyone, let alone someone with the brain power of John Roberts, could be "nonplused" by a question posed by Sen. Durbin? Turley's sources for the statement that Roberts was "nonplused" and answered after a long pause were apparently at the meeting. Who would want to portray Sen. Durbin as one who possesses the rhetorical skill to flummox the brilliant Judge Roberts? Someone from Roberts' camp? No. It must be someone close to Durbin if not the Senator himself plus an aide. I don't buy it that Roberts could be caught off guard by a question like this especially when Catholics in public office have been faced with this question so many times before.
Hannity is discussing this now.
Interesting thread ping.
Is it not terrible that here, in America, a judge might be forced into that position? Is it not worse that a United States Senator revels in the possibility, using it as a leg to trip up Judge Robert's nomination? Like the Roman Empire, does the left regard religion as okay so long as it has no public witness to speak of, and does not challenge the authority of the Almighty Liberal Orthodoxy?
Excellent, thank you
I just got home and this was to be the first thing I did after brining up FR.
It appears Mark Levin picked up on this ---- it appeared the nationalreview "bench memos" blog about 5:30pm EST.
Thanks. Maybe now the word will spread.
" Last year, Scalia chastised Catholic judges who balk at imposing the death penalty — another immoral act according to the church:"
One problem, he's got the dogma of my Church all wrong.
I have no doubt, the story as he relates it about Roberts and Turban Durbin is similarly wrong.
And yet, we have crafted a court environment these last fifty years in which they actually do make laws, and thereby decrees recognized as not legitimate.
With most men, there is a higher calling. Hero's sacrifice and do their duty when they can isolate and ignore what calls them to safety. But most have the benefit of not choosing child vs. duty or such other ultimate knots.
Legislators, in crafting human law can be inspired, led or counseled by those higher callings. Sworn officers, magistrates, Presidents and Judges cannot. Their duty is to their oath and when they are honest enough to admit they cannot be fair mindedly guided by what their oath binds them to perform, then resignation or recuesal is the honorable path.
The problem is that so few of the left have acted in that manner. They see the fair and plain words of the text and rather than go against their higher calling they break their oath and subvert the Constitution, and by doing so, make Law by Decree.
Well said.
Thanks.
Yeah, thanks, I just saw it.
He certainly gives that impression.
OK, honest judges who take their job seriously don't make laws.
I can't believe no one on this thread watched Brit's roundttable tonight. They completely debunked Turley's article. I can't remember which one of the panel knew that Durbin had already issued a denial that the conversation went as Turley reported. I"m still looking for an article to confirm it, but the premise of Turley's article is way off base, at least according to Brit's panel tonight.
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.