Skip to comments.
Hannity: (LA Times) Turley Story on Roberts Has Its Origin In Durbin's Office
Hannity ^
| 7/26/2005
| n/a
Posted on 07/26/2005 12:33:51 PM PDT by Pyro7480
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Democrats are up to the old tricks again.
1
posted on
07/26/2005 12:33:55 PM PDT
by
Pyro7480
To: Pyro7480
Well did Roberts make that gaffe or not?
2
posted on
07/26/2005 12:34:42 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: BenLurkin
Is it a gaffe or does he mean it?
3
posted on
07/26/2005 12:35:21 PM PDT
by
Huck
("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
To: Pyro7480
They might be up to the same old tricks again but they can't hide any more thanks to alternative news sources.
To: BenLurkin
There has been nothing indicating that he has.
5
posted on
07/26/2005 12:35:59 PM PDT
by
Pyro7480
("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
To: Pyro7480
6
posted on
07/26/2005 12:36:45 PM PDT
by
ConservativeMan55
(DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
To: Pyro7480
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.
To: Pyro7480
You don't have to work, if you use Durbin's info.
8
posted on
07/26/2005 12:40:02 PM PDT
by
Brilliant
To: Pyro7480
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.
9
posted on
07/26/2005 12:40:09 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: Pyro7480
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.....
10
posted on
07/26/2005 12:40:58 PM PDT
by
HarleyLady27
(I have a ? for the libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own dope, plant a lib")
To: MeanWestTexan
and if roberts uses that in his rebuttal, we'll know he's at least read the constitution :)
11
posted on
07/26/2005 12:43:08 PM PDT
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: BenLurkin
To: BenLurkin
Actually, it is not a gaffe. Any ethical judge should be willing to step out of any case, if he/she encountered a flat-out conflict between what the law requires and what his/her church required. I'll bet the sentence after that, which is not being reported, was, "Based on my experience, I do not anticipate such a conflict occurring in the future; it has not occurred in the past."
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "South Pacific" Lesson about Muslims
13
posted on
07/26/2005 12:44:17 PM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
To: Pyro7480
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?
14
posted on
07/26/2005 12:44:41 PM PDT
by
Republican Red
(''Van der Sloot" is Dutch for ''Kennedy.")
To: BenLurkin
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.
To: Congressman Billybob
"a flat-out conflict between what the law requires and what his/her church required."
Hard to imagine what that would be . . . but if there are laws on the books which violate Christian principals then we definitely need Christian judges to go ahead and set things straight.
16
posted on
07/26/2005 12:46:50 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: Pyro7480
It was clear from the start that it was Durbin's staff that released the story.
17
posted on
07/26/2005 12:47:15 PM PDT
by
OldFriend
(MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT ~ Adam Smith)
To: Pyro7480
I would submit that there is no such thing as a ruling that the Christian religion considers immoral.
Matthew 22:21
18
posted on
07/26/2005 12:47:47 PM PDT
by
wolfpat
(dum vivimus, vivamus)
To: Pyro7480
LINKAGE PLEASE - some snot nose just dropped that information into my blog and I mean to make them eat their lunch!
19
posted on
07/26/2005 12:50:15 PM PDT
by
Alkhin
(awanderingconfluence.com/blog)
To: Pyro7480
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?"
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson