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."
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.
If he considers this significant, I don't think we should shrug it off.
So exactly why, John-boy Turley, is it "the wrong answer"??
Sounds like EXACTLY THE RIGHT answer to me??
In the early 80s, James Watt, Secy of Interior, was crucified in mainstream media and by the liberal leftist demoncRATS over comments he made during his confirmation hearings about his faith.
Why should a Judges personal views on anything play a role in his interpretation of the law?
Poor dears, the only radical arguments they can manage center around Roberts' lack of radicalism.
HORRORS! The man would RECUSE himself if he thought his personal beliefs might interfere with his ability to objectively interpret the law. That MONSTER! He has INTEGRITY! We can't have THAT on the Supreme Court! Burn Him!
The assault on John Roberts' Catholicism has begun. Mrs. Roberts, you're next.
But as a moral person, it would be impossible for me and presumably Roberts, to participate in the execution of that law. As a result, the choices for someone in that position are to recuse themselves from the ruling, or to resign the position and enter the political arena to try to change the law. Roberts is correct.
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.
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?
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.