  |
|
|
|
Page 3
Moreover, judges are not political leaders. They are ideally neutral arbitrators of existing law. Dionne writes, "President Bush has spoken about the political implications of his faith. His nominee should not be afraid to do the same." Dionne skirts by the key point, but leaves it unexamined blinded by the Left's misunderstanding of the role of judges. Bush is a political leader and can be judged as a politician. Judges, contrary to the Liberal intuition, ought not to be political and as such should be evaluated under a narrower range of criteria.
Of a judge, we may query about judicial intelligence, temperament, and philosophy. Of his other convictions, we only need to know his or her fidelity to the oath to "...faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court] under the Constitution and laws of the United States." If a potential judge can take that oath with integrity, then examination of his or her religious convictions descends more into religious bigotry. The notion that Judge Roberts's Catholicism makes him an inappropriate selection for the Supreme Court says more about the intolerance of a troubling undercurrent in modern Liberalism than it does about Judge Roberts. It reflects more of the sacrifice of all Liberal jurisprudence at the altar of unrestricted abortion rights. Protests around abortion clinics, limiting the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, were prohibited in service of abortion. Now traditional Liberal religious tolerance is being lost in service of abortion.
The copyright of the article Religious Test for the Supreme Court - Page 3 in Conservative Politics is owned by . Permission to republish Religious Test for the Supreme Court - Page 3 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
