August 7, 2005
-- by Gary Boatwright
It apppears that the L.A. Times has put together an informative blog. The general discussion on their blog is incredibly lame, but they have a running series of daily round-ups of opinions from newspapers and bloggers.
Jonathan Turley wrote an editorial, The Faith of John Roberts highlighting and questioning Roberts' statement that he would have to recuse himself if a case came up that violated the teachings of the Catholic Church:
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.
It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (To his credit, Roberts did not say that his faith would control in such a case).
I've got a real problem having four Catholics on the Supreme Court. I hope Democratic Senators have the moral courage to raise this question, but I doubt it.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Let's play a little game of word-swapping
I've got a real problem having four Catholics on the Supreme Court.
Now, replace the word "Catholic" and we get all the leftists into hystericts.
I've got a real problem having four Muslims on the Supreme Court.
See the idiocy?
I would also have a problem having four Mormons or four Muslims on the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that would be OK with you Pericles?
I'm not interested in a theocracy no matter what religion is in charge.
Good on you for raising this Gary! I don't believe in theocracy either ..
Um... Gary, you missed the boat here:
Roberts disqualified himself from serving on the Supreme Court with this answer: he's going to have to recuse himself from a ton of critical cases.
Or maybe, we should all turn into Roberts' supporters now... because he's just stated that he will recuse himself from any and all decisions related to: abortion, birth control/contraceptions, stem cells, glbt issues, etc. etc. etc.
... if he holds himself to this standard, then he *CAN'T* be the 5th vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Think about it.
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at August 8, 2005 4:57 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)