Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Indy Pendance

"Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash"

What? Do other judges have to recuse themselves where their personal beliefs clash with the civil law? (If the civil law permits the death penalty, and they oppose it, do they have to recuse themselves?)

Or are we just saying that Catholics can't be on the federal bench?

By that token, Catholics can't be president, either, since they can't preside over civil law.

Just the sort of arrangement Ted Kennedy should be proud of!


3 posted on 07/25/2005 8:22:55 PM PDT by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CondorFlight
Or are we just saying that Catholics can't be on the federal ben

By that token, most other Christians can't either.

That makes a mighty big excluded majority. Guess Newdow is about the only one eligible by Turban Durbin's principle.

Methinks Turban had better look to his own ethics.

11 posted on 07/25/2005 8:34:22 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: CondorFlight

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^)


31 posted on 07/25/2005 11:14:03 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Kelo, Grutter, and Roe all have to go. Will Roberts get us there--don't know. No more Souters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson