Posted on 07/20/2005 1:28:45 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper
The lead article in today’s The American Prospect, an online magazine, says that President Bush’s selection of Judge John Roberts for a seat on the Supreme Court is evidence of his “Playing the Catholic card.” According to Adele M. Stan, Bush is “betting he’s bought himself some insulation—any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism.” She says this is a “timely pitch” to “conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections”; she urges “liberal Catholics” and others to protest Roberts.
Stan goes even further on her blog, AddieStan, by saying “Rome must be smiling” at Bush’s choice. She asks that readers contact the Democratic Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Roberts.
Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:
“We had no idea that John G. Roberts, Jr. was a Roman Catholic until today. But when we learned of his religious affiliation, we wondered how long it would be before his religion would be dragged into the debate. We didn’t have to wait too long: The American Prospect, never friendly to Catholics, let Adele M. Stan do its bidding. Roberts, she says, was chosen purely for sinister reasons.
“Now let’s apply this logic to President Clinton’s selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer for the Supreme Court. Did he do so because he liked ‘Playing the Jewish card’? And did he do so because he wanted his critics to be seen as anti-Semites? For good measure, was Israel ‘smiling’ when Clinton chose Ginsburg and Breyer?
“The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed. Unfortunately, within 24 hours of Roberts’ nomination, Catholic baiting has raised its ugly head. And the fact that it is coming from a mainstream liberal source is even more disconcerting. We hope this is not the beginning of an ugly few months.”
Never thought about his religious affiliation. Guess there are those who do.
CONSERVATIVES
Clarence Thomas, Catholic
Antonin Scalia, Catholic
John Roberts, Catholic
William Rehnquist, Lutheran
CENTRISTS
Anthony Kennedy, Catholic
LIBERALS
Steven Breyer, Jewish
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jewish
John Paul Stevens, no church
David Souter, Episcopalian
Roberts apparently does not worship at the Church of Liberalism. That's his unforgivable sin.
HE'LL BE WIRKING FOR THE POPE THE VATICIN WILL BE CONTROLING OUR GOVERMENT THREW THE SUPEME CORT WE WIL ALL BE FORCED TO WERSHIP THE CATHLIC GOD
/ SARCASM
Clarence Thomas is Episcopalian.
It took about 24 minutes on DU.
One thread last night was, "Is Roberts Catholic?"
The DUmmies are already plotting to use this as a wedge issue to freak out "fundies" (as they call conservative Protestants). The funny thing is that last night they were abuzz with disgust at Bush for having picked a "fundie," using every slur they could muster.
r uwe series?
"Ugly" is a fairly mild adjective for such a spectacle.
No, Clarence Thomas converted to Catholicism a couple of years ago. I saw him interviewed on EWTN.
I knew you were being sarcastic. Your spelling was too good. Hehehe.
"Catholics need not apply."
I didn't know who was what religion on the Court until now. Guess that betrays my nationality.
American.
Perfect! The all caps and the wretched spelling are spot on.
ITS TRUE I SAW IT ON A WEBCITE
Face it, someone will suggest it.
Wow. Only two more Catholic justices needed until we control the United States Government.
Sweeeeet.
Converted Catholics are some of the best Catholics. :)
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.