Posted on 07/26/2005 12:33:51 PM PDT by Pyro7480
The LA Times story by Jonathan Turley, stating that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts would recuse himself if "the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral," was "fed to the LA Times" by Sen. Dick Durbin's office, Sean Hannity just stated minuted again. The story quotes Roberts making such a statement after being asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."
The truth of the story was uncovered by staff at Hannity's radio show.
Well did Roberts make that gaffe or not?
Is it a gaffe or does he mean it?
They might be up to the same old tricks again but they can't hide any more thanks to alternative news sources.
There has been nothing indicating that he has.
Repeat the mantra:
1. U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 --- no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.
2. Durbin and the Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
3. They violate their oath by asking such religious questions.
You don't have to work, if you use Durbin's info.
Turley is liberal. Durbin is liberal *and* a liar. I believe Turley: Durbin told Turley Roberts said this. But Durbin now publicly denies it.
As for Roberts, who cares? Even if he may have flubbed and said this about recusal, it was an off-the-cuff remark made during what is supposed to be an entirely off-the-record "courtesy call." It is hardly an indication that he somehow would recuse himself in any significant proportion of cases due to his religious views.
As the demoRATS think, they can make anything up whenever they want...and we are going to swallow it hook, line and sinker....not in this day and age....sounds like Ill. had best recall this man before the state is a total laugh-out.....
and if roberts uses that in his rebuttal, we'll know he's at least read the constitution :)
There was no gaffe.
Congressman Billybob
If any other company in America asked a question about an applicant's religious beliefs in an interview setting there would be a lawsuit slapped on the company in the blink of an eye.
Why is the US Senate exempt from the EEOC laws?
It's the Dem strategy: make Roberts look like another Souter. Yesterday, Feinstein said that she had a private meeting with Roberts, and believes that Roberts is not going to overturn Roe. Today, there is this.
If ever there was really a black helicopter, this is it.
It makes absolutely no sense that Roberts would tell anyone that he'd disqualify himself in an issue considered important by the Roman Catholic Church--certainly not that whacko, Dick Durbin.
It was clear from the start that it was Durbin's staff that released the story.
I would submit that there is no such thing as a ruling that the Christian religion considers immoral.
Matthew 22:21
LINKAGE PLEASE - some snot nose just dropped that information into my blog and I mean to make them eat their lunch!
Is this what the democrats meant when they said they wanted to use the confirmation process as a means to highlight their policy differences with the Repbulicans and show the American people that they are "mainstream?"
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.