It seems like some Democrats are saying no:
Senator Durbin of Illinois, fresh from slandering American GIs by comparing them to Nazis, introduced a new slander into the public debate after meeting on Friday with President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts. Mr. Durbin, according to several press reports, asked the nominee to the high court whether he had considered potential conflicts between the moral imperatives of his Roman Catholic faith and his responsibilities as a judge.
Mr. Durbin’s press secretary, Joseph Shoemaker, promptly denied that his boss asked such a question. But law professor Jonathan Turley, who reported on the meeting between Mr. Durbin and Judge Roberts in a Los Angeles Times column that appears on the adjacent page, said he heard about the conversation directly from Mr. Durbin - and confirmed the senator’s account with Mr. Shoemaker as well. Mr. Durbin has since clammed up….
Mr. Durbin and his Democratic colleagues, moreover, have a track record in this regard. Two years ago, they launched a filibuster against Judge William Pryor because of Judge Pryor’s “deeply held personal beliefs” regarding abortion. In other words, it was Judge Pryor’s Catholicism that disqualified him. Before the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, Senator Reid announced, “I think that we have a right to look at John Ashcroft’s religion.”…
Mr. Durbin insisted to reporters last week that he wasn’t interested in applying a “litmus test” to judicial nominees. The senator told Judge Roberts, “If you will be honest and forthcoming, you’re going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue.” But two days later, Mr. Durbin went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to say that if Judge Roberts did not find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, on which the right to abortion is based, “It would disqualify him in my mind.”
Senator Cornyn addressed the issue in his own meeting with Judge Roberts on Monday. “I hate to see somebody going down this road, because it really smacks of a religious test for public service,” Mr. Cornyn told the nominee, speaking of Mr. Durbin. “I hate bringing this up, but since someone else already has and I know it is going to come up, is there anything about your faith or religious views that would prevent you from deciding issues like the death penalty or abortion or the like?” Judge Roberts, according to Mr. Cornyn’s recollection in a New York Times dispatch, replied, “Absolutely not.”
Yet the Democrats persist. “You wouldn’t run for the United States Senate or for governor or for anything else without answering people’s questions about what you believe,” Senator Bayh of Indiana said this week. “And I think the Supreme Court is no different.” This attitude is the side effect of using the courts to make laws rather than interpret them. But it will be an even greater debasement of the Constitution to see the judicial nomination process tarred by religious bigotry. Forty-five years after America finally elevated a Catholic to the presidency we will see whether Senators Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, and Kennedy recognize that Judge Roberts can’t be tested on his “deeply held personal beliefs” in respect of religion.
No. I don’t think a devout Catholic can become a Supreme Court Nominee, not these days.
oops….gosh darn it…let me explain….
I think it is political suicide these days with the liberals and their agenda. That’s just my view, I think in order to succeed in those types of offices, one would have to be somewhat balanced……not too far right and not too far left, in my humble opinion.
If a devout Catholic runs then the whole hot button topics are raised:
1. Abortion issue
2. Homosexual agenda
I just think it’s political suicide these days……I could be wrong though.
Ok good, so we all agree, Democrats are pushing the line so where Catholics are less likely to become Supreme Court nominees. Good!
Ok, can you give me examples of Republicans doing the same thing?
Btw, if you read what I wrote at the beginning of this thread, you will see that I wrote some (< -Keyword) Democrats are saying no.
So if partisan politics blinds, it sure doesn’t look like I’m the partisan here, does it my friend?
“Btw, if you read what I wrote at the beginning of this thread, you will see that I wrote some Democrats are saying no.”
-HP
I was only commenting on your comments in response to my initial post, nothing more.
“So if partisan politics blinds, it sure doesn’t look like I’m the partisan here, does it my friend?”
-HP
No you are not, the blindest of ‘em all seems to echo and mindlessly parrot many of your sentiments.
I don’t think that Democrats are saying Catholics can’t be supreme court justices can’t be catholics, that is absurd, what they are saying is, will a justices religious beliefs interfere with his ability to interpret the constitution. Will someone’s moral belief that abortion is evil, cloud his interpetation of the constituion and judicial precedent. Will they come to a conclusion, that abortion is wrong and then mold the judicial interpretation to fit this assumption.
Conyn’s question is ridiculios and he as a former prosecutor saying that this is sufficient evidence to prove he will not let his religious beliefs interfere with his interpretation of the law is absurd.
Thats like asking someone, are you qualified for a specific job. 99% of the people will say yes. If you were hiring someone, you would ask specific questions about what he has done in his past experience that relates to the job requirements. You would ask them about specific issues relating to the job and how they would look to handle these issues. How is it wrong to ask probing questions to make sure you are getting the right man for the job.
Michael,
I agree with your point, and there certainly is a level of reasonable questions. However, Democrats are getting close, very close, to crossing that line. They sometimes seem to imply that it is not possible to be impartial when you have deeply held religious views. In other words, getting really close to concluding that a devout Catholic can not be a Supreme Court justice.
For now, we can add this as yet another reason why the liberal ‘living constitution’ judicial philosophy should be abandoned. It politicizes the court more and more, and may cause liberals to cross lines they should not cross.
Michael wrote:
“will a justices religious beliefs interfere with his ability to interpret the constitution”.
Possibly, but what can be so wrong with siding with life and making an attempt for reducing unecessary abortions? Is there a law against one practicing his freedom of religion?
I believe Reagan is a good example of a political leader who was led by his ideology and convictions:
“Reagan was a committed Christian from his childhood, and frequently addressed Christian groups. He argued that communism’s atheistic worldview was one of its worst features”.
HP:
I would take that as a compliment, as you know, both you and I have our disagreements, but I do agree with many of your views.
It’s a heck of a lot better agreeing with many of your views than that of Hillary Clinton and what the Clinton administration mostly stood for!
DD wrote:
“will a justices religious beliefs interfere with his ability to interpret the constitution”.
Possibly, but what can be so wrong with siding with life and making an attempt for reducing unecessary abortions? Is there a law against one practicing his freedom of religion?
You just defined a judicial activist. And this is the problem I have with many people arguing against these liberal activist judges. It is not the “activist” part that bothers them it is the liberal part. When a judge ignores legal precedant and decides an issue because he feels it is right that is activism.
I agree with Michael. Activism is wrong irregardless of who is doing it.
Al, will you please delete my last 2 comments….too many mistakes.
Michael, you quoted where I wrote, “what is wrong with siding with life and practicing one’s freedom of religion”, and I assume you understood this to mean that this makes one a judicial activist.
I believe presidents appoint justices generally according to their platforms, so I think there will always be these types of struggles between so called liberal judges and conservative judges.
Sometimes judges don’t have a precedant ‘yet’ to refer to and that is why they make ‘new’ decisions as ‘new’ things arise.
DD,
I deleted your last two comments.
I think Michael’s point, of which I agree with him, is that it is judicial activism for a judge to let her/his personal views cloud his/her judgement on cases in front of him. Those personal views can be religious or secular, either way, if they cloud her/his judgement, and s/he allows them to have an influence on what is before her/him, judicial activism will result.
It’s a personal view to side with life? Hmmmm. It was my understanding that decisions by the court set and change laws everyday.
Interesting.
OOps….butter-fingers……..
One more time, It is my understanding that decisions made by the court set and change laws every day.
Things evolve all of the time, and judges have their agendas as well.
Come election time, we find out who is conservative and who is not. Many judges receive financial and vote support for their campaigns.
Personally, I choose democratic ‘criminal’ judges at times and normally I pick conservative judges for other seats.
But yes, HP, some judges have ‘clouded’ judgements and I do not agree with that. Clouded judgements are not so good.
hello,
i’m heading to an event this afternoon, “hispanic leaders host judicial briefing on john g. roberts and the hispanic community,” hosted by hispanics for a fair judiciary, an off-shoot of alliance for justice, which hosts the web site supremecourtwatch.org.
i am interested in speaking with hispanics who may not subscribe to the above-mentioned group’s views on roberts, and found your blog while looking for alternative viewpoints.
if you or any of your regular posters are interested in being intervieed by phone this afternoon for a story in tomorrow’s express-nwes, i would be appreciative.
“John Roberts’ Record: A Snapshot of Where We Are Now.Read the Report” is a brief three and a half page report from alliance for justice that reasonably sums up the concerns of the group that will be speaking today, which includes u.s. rep. charlie gonzalez; prof. reynaldo a. valencia, from st. mary’s school of law; victor landa of southwest voter research education project, luis figueroa, a policy analyst with mexican-american legal defense fund and deece eckstein or people for american way.
i can be reached at either of the two numbers below. the discussion is at 4:30 p.m. texas time, and should last about an hour. i should be back at my desk by 6 at the latest. if you get my voice mail, please leave a return phone number and i’ll call you right back.
i cannot take calls later than 7:30-8 p.m. for deadline. respondents are also welcome to send me an email, but it must include a phone number so that i can verify the sender. we do not include anonymous quotes, so please do not respond if you’re not interested in speaking on the record.
thanks again,
tracy idell hamilton
staff writer,
san antonio express-news
thamilton@express-news.net
210-250-3173 desk
210-859-9136 cell