John Roberts disdain for the Bible???

AP,

a very smart man he could have parsed his answer a lot better to exalt the Bible and still
not come off as some thumper.


So exactly might he have done that? What is an acceptable level to you for a judge to incorporate the Bible into his opinions? What say you, AP?

 

And you have shown yourself time and time again to be hyper-critical toward anyone who is a conservative Republican.

 

And he also won't give a straight answer when it means giving up room to criticize. The difference between ASLANSPAL and other critics of President Bush like poncho, BiR, and [fill in the blank] is that we know where they stand and why they disagree with the President. I may disagree with them but I know where the disagreements are and I respect them.

 

That is what I really respect about you, FTR.
Although I am a little biased (I am quite fond of you), I do enjoy reading your posts and hearing your "take" on the topics at hand.

Much respect to you, my brother,
BiR

 

And to you, BiR. You know, one of the things that most intrigues me about our disagreement is that you have crossed corners of the ring, from Right to Left. And what I respect about you is that you bring a great deal of class into a disagreement. I suspect that my "take" must drive you up the wall sometimes (e.g., my "line of the Gitmo prisoners in front of a firing squad") but despite such positions you never go after the person.

You're first rate, my friend.

FTR

 

ASLANSPAL,

Do I understand that you would rather have Judge Moore sitting in front of the Judiciary Committee and eventually on the Supreme Court? Do you think the President should have picked Judge Moore? Or are you again looking for a convenient way to poke President Bush in the eye? Is your position that you don't like him whether he perfectly fits what you want or what those on the Right might want? Would you rather have Judge Moore or Judge Roberts? Out of curiousity, who would be your ideal judge to be on the Supreme Court?

You do raise some good points but you're wrong that this isn't just about you. You have thoroughly established yourself here as looking ANYWHERE for something to criticize President Bush for.

As to good points, yes, many of us on the Right, including myself, are still quite concerned whether Roberts will turn out to be a Souter. Ann Coulter raised some excellent arguments, in addition to a few hackles, with her column early on. While I don't believe he will turn out to be anything like a Ginsburg or Breyer, another Souter would be bad enough. If you could clone any of the current Justices to fill one of the open seats, who would it be?

I think you also touched on a possible reason for his statement re the Bible and his being Catholic. While his answer may be for the reasons Ken, I, and others have raised (i.e., his focus should be on the Constitution) I don't think that it is a Biblical/liturgical difference with Catholics so much as a stronger reliance, going back to their grounding in St. Thomas Aquinas's teachings, on natural law. It is at least arguable that natural law is an underpinning of English and thus American common law, if not a root of Western legal institutions.

 

My guess is that Aslanspal's ideal Justice would be Ginsberg. I hope not Blackmon.

 

And, for the record, if it hasn't been clear from my previous posts on Judge Moore, I would not want him on the U.S. Supreme Court. As I've stated before, my first pick would be Michael W. McConnell. Am still curious who ASLANSPAL would pick.

 

Harvard Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe would--I imagine--be A-Pal's choice.

One has to wonder how much of our law is actually based upon Christian principles since the court has authorized the murder of the unborn, the legalization of sodomy, the overthrow of the death penalty for murder, and grabbing of private property by the state for the use by more wealthy individuals than the current landowner.

 

I know that you all remember our President's request today a day of prayer and rememberance
let us be faithful in the cause

 

Okay, but how could he do that on Mexican Independence Day--it is a party day for illegals in my neighborhood?

 

CMG,

Current law, absolutely, I agree with you. But as to the roots, I believe there is definitely a Judeo-Christian underpinning. Current law, because of the legal positivism which now infects it, along with the liberal worldview, has sapped this fiber out of the law, though.

 

I will always favor the constitutional constructionist. That means I will favor a lost soul who is a constructionist over a person of faith who isn't. We've had plenty of believers and nonbelievers in government who abuse judicial authority, so faith alone is hardly a litmus test. The constitution forbids religious tests for appointments, so why do I think that I would know better?

Good, because, Moore implied that looking to scripture for legal decisionmaking was okay. I disagree with Moore. While I admire his spiritual conviction, I do not agree with his judicial conviction. A judge should look to the law, and the law alone.

 

Perhaps ASLANSPAL is not available but I'm beginning to think that he is probably at his local Michael Moore Chapter meeting of moveon.org tonight, where the topics are "How to Hide My Extremism", "The 'Eel' Word: How to Slip Out of the Liberal Label" and "But Seriously Folks: Getting Taken Seriously When Using Ridiculous Arguments".

 

Are you inferring that Judge Roberts is a lost soul? </font>[/QUOTE]No, not at all, I was simply stating that I would rather have judges that were believers and strict constructionists rather than unbelievers and strict constructionists. A believer has, I believe, a better understanding of the power behind its founding. Perhaps....It really isn't much of a point I suppose.

 

[Coaxing ASLANSPAL from under his rock] Come out, come out, wherever you are. Still trying to think of a response to the questions raised or simply trying to avoid them?

 

I guess that means AP won't tell us who his ideal Supreme Court nominee would be. Surprise, surprise. I guess that means more Bush bashing on any topic.