Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Roberts & Religion

In the aftermath of a damaging LATimes piece last Monday which detailed Roberts' response to a question by Sen. Durbin about what he'd do if a decision had to be made that went against his religious beliefs, WaPo's E.J. Dionne has a great piece about why religion is relevant and how both sides are playing hypocritically.

The truth, in my opinion, is that if he'll recuse himself from a case that would violate his religious beliefs, then he's entangling church and state in judicial affairs. We don't want people ruling based on their religious beliefs, no matter which religion they practice. I wouldn't rule based on what the Torah says and I hope a Catholic wouldn't rule based on what their bible says. At the same time, there are religious values that seem to be universal and ingrained in society. But not ruling because of what your religion says, or ruling because of what your religion says seems entirely inappropriate to me and I think it should definitely be an issue in his confirmation hearings.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damaging???!!!?? To the LA Time and Dick Durbin maybe...

Dude ... retractions and evasions from Durbin's ofice have been all over the place for the past week.

See, e.g. (because most recent), here: www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050801-094053-3740r.htm

5:45 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Even the WashTimes piece you cited admitted that if Roberts had actually said what the LAT reported, he would be unfit for the SCOTUS and POTUS would be obligated to revoke his nomination.

However, since the conversation is in question and may never have happened at all, I will retract the 'damaging' description and update the post later this evening. I guess I should have followed this story more closely over the past week.

Thank you for your comment.

8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damaging" is an objective - and in this case innacurate - evaluation.

As I indicated above, the only parties damaged by the article were Durbin (who denied the story) and the LA Times (who should have corrected it).

12:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home