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

Skip to comments.

Jonathan Turley and The LA Times Make Sensational Charge Against Court Nominee -(Durbin again!)
A.I.M.ORG ^ | JULY 27, 2005 | EDITOR

Posted on 07/27/2005 7:04:22 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Having been named as a source, Durbin's office is denying it all and claiming that Turley's Monday Los Angeles Times column, "The Faith of John Roberts," was apparently based on Turley's one-minute discussion with Durbin in the NBC News make-up room after the Senator had appeared on Sunday's Meet the Press.

"Durbin is prone to make controversial comments and even apologize for them," stated AIM editor Cliff Kincaid. "The issue is whether Durbin has backed away from a false charge or whether Turley rushed into print with an erroneous account."

Turley's column claimed that Roberts, in a meeting with Durbin, had made the damaging admission that he would have to recuse himself in cases where the Constitution conflicted with his Catholic faith. Turley based the account on anonymous sources that he later identified as Durbin and his aide when the information in his column was challenged.

Turley told AIM that, "I have notes, emails, and other material supporting that I called to confirm with his aide and that the account in the article was read to him and confirmed." Durbin press secretary Joe Shoemaker, the aide in question, disputed that, telling AIM that he did not confirm Turley's account before it was published.

Whatever the ultimate truth, Kincaid said Turley's column was certainly in error over his claim that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty as "immoral." In fact, the church does not hold that capital punishment is immoral and continues to accept its use in some cases. AIM asked that Turley correct the record on this matter but he has refused.

(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aim; dickdurbin; durbin; faith; johngrobertsjr; johnroberts; jonathanturley; latimes; nominee; presidentbush; scotus; turley

1 posted on 07/27/2005 7:04:22 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Maybe this is the basis of Feinstein's claim that Roberts would not vote to overrule Roe. If it's not, then the Feinstein statement contradicts the Durbin statement. He can't vote to uphold Roe if he recuses himself.


2 posted on 07/27/2005 7:13:35 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

It seemed only a matter of time before they brought up his Religion. The Socialist Left's greatest fear is the Catholic Religion and Pope Benedict XVI. They have good reason to be afraid too!

Durbin's track record with the American people has been stretched to the point of snapping back into the face of the Socialist. It's definitly time for the "Honorable Senator from the Great State of Illinois" to be drummed from the Senate, Ride him out on a rail - whatever it takes!


3 posted on 07/27/2005 7:14:15 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie ('Cuntas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Hmmmmm. This reporter sure was quick to name his source. Hehehehe.


4 posted on 07/27/2005 7:14:18 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
"The issue is whether Durbin has backed away from a false charge "

I think this is exactly what happened. Durbin popped off to Turley with another of his 'open mouth, insert foot' allegations, and got caught telling a huge whopper.

Durbin is quickly rendering himself an embarrrassment to the democrats.

5 posted on 07/27/2005 7:17:47 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

As long as there are morons like Dickie Durbin leading the Democratic Party, the Republican majorities in congress may be safe, even though I am having trouble figuring out what conservative principles those majorities are advancing.


6 posted on 07/27/2005 7:18:03 PM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
in cases where the Constitution conflicted with his Catholic faith.

I'm not a Catholic - can someone explain to me where the Constitution might conflict with the Catholic faith?

I could maybe understand the bits about three-fifths of the slaves, but that's all repealed anyway.

What the heck might he be referring to (if he indeed said such a thing)?

7 posted on 07/27/2005 7:18:58 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
This article refers to it as a "damaging admission" that Judge Roberts would (allegedly) disqualify himself from a case where he had an incurable conflict of interest. Helloooo. Any honest judge would say the same.

As someone who has asked judges to "recuse" themselves, meaning remove themselves from a case for conflict of interest, I view this as an honest and positive statement (if it is a true account). It is the exact opposite from a "damaging admission."

The discussions in the press of who John Roberts is, and his view of the legitimate and constitutional authority of judges, is engendering a great deal of mindless twaddle. This is a sample of that twaddle.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "South Pacific" Lesson about Muslims

8 posted on 07/27/2005 7:25:58 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I don't buy Turley's "I had no idea I was being used" act for a nanosecond - he's been around plenty long enough to know how these Supreme Court games are played, and if he doesn't know he's too stupid to do his job and needs to be dismissed as a poltroon. And I sure as hell don't buy Durbin's denial that he said what Turley claims he said.

Nope, this was a carefully coordinated smear meant to lay the groundwork of the liberal assault against Roberts, the painting of him as a religious extremist who won't be capable of separating his faith from the law, and thus unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. So far, it's all the Dims have.


9 posted on 07/27/2005 7:48:39 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

"Turley told AIM that, "I have notes, emails, and other material supporting that I called to confirm with his aide and that the account in the article was read to him and confirmed." Durbin press secretary Joe Shoemaker, the aide in question, disputed that, telling AIM that he did not confirm Turley's account before it was published."

That is what is so difficult when trying to decide between two left wingers. Since both are liars, I get confused.

I will go with Turley on this. Dirtbag Turbin Durbin wouldn't know the truth if it tap-danced across his nose.

Blessings, Bobo


10 posted on 07/27/2005 9:30:38 PM PDT by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
I'm not a Catholic - can someone explain to me where the Constitution might conflict with the Catholic faith?

It doesn't...anywhere.

I could maybe understand the bits about three-fifths of the slaves, but that's all repealed anyway.

Since the three-fifths clause was designed to weaken slavery's hold on the nation, only someone who is in favor of slavery would claim to oppose it.

What the heck might he be referring to (if he indeed said such a thing)?

Who knows what liberals refer to regarding anything? I don't think Turley is lying, that isn't his style. Yet he is a liberal and that requires the suspension of common sense.

11 posted on 07/28/2005 3:57:36 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

I too am not a catholic, but, I believe that, in a case such as birth control, where potential "freedoms" might allow actions not condoned by the church, it would be difficult for a Real practicing catholic (as opposed to the JF'nK type) to rule in favor of the constitution and opposed to the teachings of the church.

Of course, a clever Judge could always use the "powers not granted" option. I.e. Since Congress was not granted the power to legislate in "personal" matters, any laws passed by them reagrding such matters are null and void.

This would probably be too extreme though.


12 posted on 07/28/2005 4:15:20 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

Nice to see the evil donkey and the ratmedia going at it.
Trouble in my enemy's tent always makes me smile.


13 posted on 07/28/2005 4:41:55 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (The ratmedia: always eager to remind us of why we hate them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

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