Posted on 07/25/2005 8:20:20 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
There is another article on FreeRepublic where an aide from Durbin's office denied what Turley wrote concerning recusal. I think it was from the NRO.
Who do we believe? I do not think that Roberts would say something so "stupid" as to recuse himself from abortion cases. I believe the NRO article wrote that Roberts said that he could keep his personal views out of his judgments.
I'd believe NRO over NY Times in a NY minute.
Sounds to me as if Durbin's people put out spinning crap about what Roberts said, and Durbin had to retract it because he was the one in deep doodoo. Democrats can't get away with going after a Bush appointee because of his religion.
Remember, one of the reasons Kerry and the dems have been losing elections is because of losing the so called, Christian evangelical vote The accusation that democrats would punish a Supreme Court nominee becasue he's Catholic is something the democrats must avoid.
And besides that, just think how bad this looks for Durbin. Roberts goes in for a private meeting with Durbin, and Durbin has his people leaking their supposed conveersation. Bad, bad form...makes Durbin look like such a louse. I figure Demo honcho got to Durbin real quick and told him to fix this disaster quick. Correct the record, retract, deny, and then hide your sorry ass till this blows over.
I bet Brit will have Turley on Tuesday night. What fun! And isn't this proof positive how little the left can come up with on Roberts? the kids clothes, is you is or is ain a member of the Federalist Society Member, what about your wife, and now, did you tell Durbin anything at all?
Maybe Roberts said that if he felt that his personal views would cause him to be unable to fairly apply the law as a matter of conscience, he would recuse himself. What do you think? Of course, such a recusal on those grounds has NEVER happened, ever, so far as I know. Judges always feel they can be fair, always. They sometimes recuse themselves on the basis on conflict on interest given the parties involved. That is about it.
Durbin seems to be in a meltdown mode. Maybe he is having trouble at home or something.
This doesn't pass the smell test...and it's already been posted under a different newspaper banner.
Jimmy Carter operated the same way. Dems can't complain.
What I am suggesting is that is there is anything to this at all, Roberts was doing a word dump on Durbin stating the obvious, in generalized terms. Durbin for his own reasons, might have decided to spin it to get into the news, and well, he was bit in the ass yet again.
Article IV, Clause 3:
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
Bad enough Durbin had to apologize for his Guantanamo/Nazi comments. (And the allegations weren't even true!!!) Now it looks as if his big day in the sun, Supreme Court nominations, has been put on the back burner...by the brilliance of Bush, and because democrats have apparently decided to let Roberts slide into the Supreme Court so they can concentrate on "getting" Rove. Now this.
The big unions are splitting up...there goes Ohio, Florida and Missouri in 2006 and 2008 elections.
Durbin should be in a deep blue funk by now.
Oh, come on. I'm sure we could all come around to the idea of keeping Catholics off the SCOTUS bench. As long as we get the faux-Catholics out of the Senate...especially the ones from Massachussetts...first. 8^)
He added, "I said...is there anything about your faith or religious views that would prevent you from deciding issues like the death penalty of abortion or the like?' ""...the death penalty of abortion". That has to be the most ironic typesetting error ever to appear in the Old Grey Lady.
Does Turbin Durbin recuse himself from votes on issues like abortion ,homos,or the death penalty?
Is Turley that much of a sucker? How did he verify the quote and/or why was he so eager to use it in his column?
-PJ
Turley isn't a liar, and he wouldn't have misquoted Durbin.
After Turley's article came out, I think the dems and Durbin realized real quick, that leaking Robert's misquote was backfiring on them. Bad enough Durbin revealed a private conversation to the media. A misquote, (and I'm sure it was an intentional misquote), the right immediately hit Durbin hard for what he had done. The right smartly, went on the attack by playing their religion card: "Democrats are anti-Catholic. Democrats are illegally using a person's religion against him" (It's a joy to see the right has finally learned how to play the game.)
two things I feel sure of. 1. Turley wouldn't have written that article if he didn't have the info from Durbin and Durbin's sources. 2. Roberts would not have said any of that to Dick Durbin. which leads me to the conclusion, Durbin once again, made a huge political misstep.
I'd almost be willing to be my first-born that Turley will be on with Brit tonight. (If he isn't, it will be because he's playing journalist, and won't burn his sources...even tho they basically, lied to him).
That had better be a lie.
Speaking of Durbin, check this out:
http://www.cathfam.org/PRDurbin7.30.03.html
Like Deathocrats, we must go back some years and dig.
The conservative Catholic Site BeliefNet has some very interesting things to say about Roberts and his family:
If Catholics in America tend to fall into two broad categories--those who dissent from controversial Church teaching and those who subscribe to it--Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., would appear to fall into the latter category. He attends Church of the Little Flower, a Maryland parish that heterodox Catholics would regard as an outpost of traditional Catholicism.
...
On the Church of the Little Flower's website, which links to the Vatican and promotes traditional piety and devotions such as "Forty Hours of Eucharistic Adoration," Monsignor Vaghi has posted a meditation on chastity.
...
In another meditation, Monsignor Vaghi staunchly defended the Church's teaching on abortion. "After all, since Roe v. Wade in l973, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion, there have been over 44 million abortions, young children dying before they had the opportunity to enjoy life outside the womb as we enjoy life," he wrote. "Our church is always, and will always, be on the side of life, life from conception until natural death. And it is precisely because Jesus took on life, took on flesh and ennobled it by becoming man and like us in everything but sin that we value human life so much, that we were born in His image and reborn in Christ Jesus."
...
Several press accounts have noted that John Roberts and his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts followed Monsignor Vaghi from St. Patrick's, his old parish in Washington, D.C., to Little Flower, and that Vaghi presided at their wedding. This has given conservative Catholic leaders who respect Vaghi confidence that Roberts is not cut from the same liberal cloth as Catholic Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
...
Jane Roberts has been a diligent and open pro-life advocate, providing legal assistance to Feminists for Life. She is also active in the John Carroll Society, an organization that encourages Catholic lawyers (she is a partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm) to practice their profession according to high moral standards. Monsignor Vaghi is chaplain to the group.
As I wrote earlier, the more I know about John Roberts, the more I like him and the more comfortable I feel that he will interpret the constitution as it is written, not as the leftists wish that it were written.
Michael McCullough (DallasMike)
Stingray blog
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.