NYT: Skirmish Over a Query About Roberts's Faith ("recusal" statement)

[Pirate Smile]

WASHINGTON, July 25 - Congressional Republicans warned Democrats on Monday not to make Judge John G. Roberts's Roman Catholic faith an issue in his confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court, reviving a politically potent theme from previous battles over judicial appointees.

The subject came up after reports about a meeting on Friday at which Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, is said to have asked Judge Roberts whether he had thought about potential conflicts between the imperatives of their shared Catholic faith and of the civil law. The discussion was described by two officials who spoke anonymously because the meeting was confidential and by a Republican senator who was briefed on their conversation.

-snip-
An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash.

A spokesman for Mr. Durbin and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who spoke to Judge Roberts on Monday about the meeting, said Professor Turley's account of a recusal statement was inaccurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/26roberts.html

[TahitiNut]

1. I really, really love hearing all the Republican "guidance" to the ...

... Democratic members of the Senate. It's really fascinating how they seem to believe they can disqualify some of the very reasons they chose Rogers as somehow outside the bounds of any examination whatsoever.

Just where is there any objective, trustworthy assurance that their very choice was NOT made on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology, and personal opinions on matters foreseen to come before the court??

Why are all the characteristics they seem to regard as MOST important somehow proclaimed as "out of bounds" for the Senate's advise and consent role????


What's even more astonishing is the fact that there are "Democrats" who will take such "guidance"!

Fucking appalling!

[Erika]

2. The Constitution wasn't centered on religion

Why should the debate? The GOP is out of line a country mile.

[Demeter]

3. This guy isn't going to fly

He's as tainted as Bolton, and for many of the same reasons. Bush couldn't pick anyone off the street, though. He always wants his knife in their backs.

[Erika]

4. Bush has no idea of what average Americans think

or deal with. Nor is he interested in finding out.

[punpirate]

5. I hope that at least one Dem--in open hearings--has the balls...

... to ask Roberts what he thought of the opinion that stopped the Florida count in the 2000 election. That should elicit a sense of Roberts' judicial tendencies as much as any other.

[Erika]

6. Good point n/t

[me b zola]

7. I'm really F'n tired of the rethugs **warning** Dems

And I am even more tired of many of the Dems heading those warnings. :hurts:

[Erika]

8. Agreed

The American public backs our views. We need to yell it out loud and clear.

[Patty Diana]

9. White House Warns Dems on Roberts Papers

Here's the link___ Utterly astounding arrogance http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush;_ylt=ApqfvdcuKy1geUHQNzJqXXytOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[MODemocrat]

21. Most of us resent someone ordering us around

We are the average Democrats who have a backbone; so what puzzles me is what has the democratic party gained by kissing up to George W. Bush's bullying! As far as Bush is down in the tank, why would ANYONE even have any faith in him at all,let alone being afraid :scared: of him? I understand they must be civil to him, but that's all. :grr: :shrug:


:dem:

[me b zola]

22. Cowering before bullies will increase the bullying behavior

The Dems should borrow from the parlimentary system & state unequivically that they have ***NO CONFIDENCE*** in this administration. They should state that this administration is not acting in good faith and at every turn is abusing their power. There are no rational or good faith compromises to be made with this administration, on any issue.


Dancing with the devil will make you his bitch.

[MODemocrat]

24. So true, bullies are actually very insecure people

They need someone to say boo to them, and watch them cower. I can't stand bullies. :puke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[IndianaGreen]

10. The issue is whether Roberts is an Opus Dei Catholic

like Scalia and Thomas are.

We shouldn't put members of a rightwing cult in the Supreme Court. Scalia should have been vetted for this, but he wasn't. Thomas became a Catholic convert and was baptized by an Opus Dei priest after being confirmed to SCOTUS.

[peacefreak]

11. That's ironic.

The GOP certainly didn't hesitate to use & manipulate Kerry's Catholicism during the election. Tsk-tsk. The slippery slope of double standards.

[shanti]

12. how many catholics does this make

on the supremes? i have fat tony, and uncle thomas. would roberts make three?

[bornskeptic]

15. He would be the fourth. Kennedy is also Catholic. n/t

[jumptheshadow]

13. The administration of the Church is responsible

They have foisted their religion into politics, and, therefore, have raised a valid question about whether any Catholic will follow the Pope or an objective professional standard in governance.

JFK stated clearly that there was a separation between Church and State. Many other good public servants have, as well. However, Church administrators have made it clear that they want to insinuate their "infallible" judgments onto entire nations and communities. Some have refused communion and ostacized politicians who voted objectively. Some have blatantly or subtly thrown their support behind candidates.

Their actions clearly open up any Catholic politician (including liberals) to the question of where their loyalities lay.

[UTUSN]

14. Recusing Himself from All Such Cases Would Make Him Useless

Unable to function in the job. And the re-emergence of Catholicism as an issue makes it clear that JFK's "settling" of the issue was just a feint, that there really IS a problem with Catholic American politicians "taking orders" from Rome.

[redqueen]

16. So then he's admitted he's unable to judge the law on its own merits?

If he needs to recuse himself from these cases, that seems to indicate he can't separate his faith from his judicial responsibilities.

Isn't that kind of a problem if your chosen career is to be a judge?

[iamjoy]

17. The Catholic Church Has Made Sure There Is A Conflict

of interest. I hate to Catholic bash here, but the Catholic Church has made it so we must be suspicious of any Catholic politician. They publicly advocating denying communion to any policitican who is pro-choice (although they are "curiously" silent about the death penalty). So, any Catholic politician would be faced with choosing between his/her faith and the law of the U.S.

Curiously, a similar problem is emerging with other Protestant faiths. Judge Greer who made a ruling based on law, not faith, in the Terri Schiavo case was asked to leave his Church/congregation (Baptist, I believe). But these other denominations do not have the structure and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

There is a lot of religion bashing on the left, often unjustified. But, things like this only fill secular people with more fear and distrust of people who claim to follow God.

[TahitiNut]

19. Any 'faith' that abandons conscience and resorts to secular law to enforce

... their particular brand of dogma is no longer a 'religion' and is, instead, a secular, authoritarian political ideology that's antithetical to democracy. Period.

People who fail to comprehend this and, under the guise of 'freedom of religion,' resort to secular totalitarianism for enforcement of that which their "faith" is too weak to sustain have neither 'faith' nor 'conscience.'

[Kber]

18. It doesn't need to be couched in purely religious terms

for example - perhaps you disagree with a law which makes it possible to arrest a 12 year old for eating fries (just saying), but the law is clear, and in your judicial opinion, valid. What do you do?

In other words, can you separate your personal beliefs and morals (what ever their source) from your judicial opinions regarding constitutional law.

If the answer in "no", then you are not qualified to sit on the bench - period.

[MGKrebs]

20. I want to know about this "strict constructionist" stuff.

Seems to me like, "strict constructionist" is supposed to mean that if it isn't written on the paper (the Constitution) then it cannot be construed, i.e., privacy. But that goes against the whole idea of the judicial system, doesn't it? Judges are supposed to interpret the intent and effect of laws. Not every single possible circumstance can be specifically mentioned in the constitution, or case law for that matter.

What about the 2nd amendment? I would think that even most NRA people would agree that rocket launchers, suitcase nukes, Stinger missiles, and Bunker Buster bombs are OK to be restricted. But the 2nd amendment makes no such restriction, it has to be construed.

[maryallen]

23. Roberts "can't remember" whether he's a member of Federalist Society, but

We're supposed to BELIEVE that he'll recuse himself on abortion issues??

Yeah, ... right.