Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: Religion and the Courts

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Mr. [DAN] GILGOFF: Well, we know that she has a record of siding with those who are alleging violations of their religious liberty. And I think that’s been another bright spot for conservatives. It’s interesting in that conservatives came out roundly against her as soon as her nomination was announced this week, and at the same time, I mean, in the analysis that they were releasing before Obama made his choice, she kind of received the warmest treatment. And I think some of that was because of her rulings over the religious liberty cases.

Mr. [TOD] LINDBERG: I think you’d also have to draw the distinction between the conservative commentary crowd and actually the members of the Senate, who have taken a very cautious view of this. I mean they promised, the Republicans promised full scrutiny, full assessment, but certainly no one has leapt out to be an opposition figure. Certainly no one has said this nominee is unacceptable where it really matters, which is in the Senate.

[DEBORAH] POTTER: So the presumption at this point is that she will be confirmed?

Mr. LINDBERG: I think the presumption is exactly that, in the absence of some unknown, unexpected revelation or disclosure.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-WatchLaw & Legal IssuesReligion & Culture

4 Comments
Posted May 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Words Matter wrote:

I don’t have the skills to analyze her rulings, but reading commentary makes me wonder if she’s all that awful. Yes, there’s the “wise Latina” thing, but apparently some pro-life folks aren’t too unhappy, and if she takes the side of religious liberty, then it’s possible she isn’t the liberal ogre she’s being made out to be.

In any case, it’s always useful to remember the tradition of justices who turned out to be something other than their appointing president intended.

May 30, 9:23 pm | [comment link]
2. Katherine wrote:

She’ll probably be confirmed, so we will get what we get, all sides.

May 31, 12:10 am | [comment link]
3. Fr. Dale wrote:

I don’t think she should get a free pass. Questions need to be asked by the loyal opposition. It is kind of like when a baseball pitcher has a man on first and looks the runner back to first before throwing the ball just to keep the runner honest. She needs to clarify her previous comments about ethnic perspectives and legislating from the bench plus her views on the second amendment. It does bother me that Rush Limbaugh and S. Hannity have become so strident about this. Simply ask the questions that need to be asked in a polite and respectful manner and stop yelling.

May 31, 9:15 am | [comment link]
4. Br. Michael wrote:

If ethnicity is ok to select someone, why is it not ok to reject someone on that basis?

May 31, 1:02 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State, and Local Budgets

Previous entry (below): Charlie Rose: A Conversation with author Simon Schama about his “The American Future: A History”

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)