The following comments were all made since August 1 about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:
● Larry King (CNN, 8-4): “Anyone have a problem on him being a devout Catholic?”
● Bill Press (Sun-Sentinel, 8-2): “It is absolutely essential to explore Roberts’ religious beliefs as part of the confirmation process.”
● John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, (Providence Journal, 8-2): “The Roberts couple seem to be very well-educated; I wonder whether in their high-minded socializing with Clarence and Virginia Thomas (at the College of the Holy Cross) and Robert and Mary Ellen Bork (at the lay Catholic John Carroll Society), they find time for informal book chat….”
● Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst for Slate, (NPR, 8-2): “And I wouldn’t underestimate the influence of his religion, that Scalia and Thomas, one of the reasons they may not have drifted leftward has a lot to do with very, very strong religious views that pull them to the right. And I think that probably John Roberts will fall into that camp in that sense.”
● Christopher Hitchens (Slate, 8-1): “If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things?”
● Frances Kissling (NPR, 8-1): “If this pope will intervene in the ways he has already in Europe, it certainly raises questions for us in the immediate sense in terms of whether he thinks he can tell John Roberts how to vote when he gets on the Supreme Court.”
Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:
“These kinds of questions and remarks—all of which are designed as red flags—were never made about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. That’s because they’re Jewish and Roberts is Catholic. There is no other plausible reason.”
1 comment:
so far not a lot of this sort of 'logic', i think the american people would see through it quickly.
i was more concerned about the reports of his pro bono time for a case supporting certain special homosexual 'rights' i was glad to read a report which detailed it fairly. basically, he role played as a conservative supreme court judge for 5 hours, asking tough questions of other lawyers who actually argued the case. technically, he didn't exactly volunteer to do it either, but was asked by his employer to do it (as is common), shortly after he began the new job. so, they new enough then to cast him as a conservative judge - that makes me more confident in him. and all he did was spend his time pointing out hiles in their aeguements.
considering how i've heard liberal commentators trying to use it as a wedge to divide his supporters, yet not as evidence that they should support him, makes me even more confident still in Roberts as a judge. (if he'd really done something to help win the case, the libs would be more supportive of him).
the important thing now is that we don't let the media play us on this. don't let them spread half truths to divide his supporters!
terry george
Post a Comment