MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Durbin, Turley, Roberts And The NY Times
Update: See Betsy's Page and The Anchoress on the same issue. It's not just me. Betsy writes "Whom are we to disbelieve: Dick Durbin or Dick Durbin?"
Also see Stones Cry Out. Also see Mover Mike (and click on the antecedent posts)
End Update.
A storm is building over the Durbin question. It started with Turley's article in the LA Times, and the fires are being fanned in this article in the NY Times:
Also see Stones Cry Out. Also see Mover Mike (and click on the antecedent posts)
End Update.
A storm is building over the Durbin question. It started with Turley's article in the LA Times, and the fires are being fanned in this article in the NY Times:
The subject came up after reports about a meeting on Friday at which Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, is said to have asked Judge Roberts whether he had thought about potential conflicts between the imperatives of their shared Catholic faith and of the civil law. The discussion was described by two officials who spoke anonymously because the meeting was confidential and by a Republican senator who was briefed on their conversation.You can get up to speed in this prior post on the LA Times article and this one about Cornyn's contradiction and Durbin quasi denial. Now the NY Times article states that Turley claimed that he got his information straight from Durbin:
Judge Roberts responded that his personal views would not color his judicial thinking, all three said, just as he has testified in the past.
A spokesman for Mr. Durbin and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who spoke to Judge Roberts on Monday about the meeting, said Professor Turley's account of a recusal statement was inaccurate.So some one's lying. Worse, the NY Times appears to be inaccurately characterizing Turley's account of the conversation, which was:
But in an interview last night, Professor Turley said Mr. Durbin himself had described the conversation to him on Sunday morning, including the statement about recusal.
According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).But this is what appears in the NY Times article:
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.
An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash.I think any objective person would agree that this is a distortion of what Turley wrote and what he had been told about what Roberts said. Furthermore, the NY Times article contains this:
Whatever the conversation in the senator's office on Friday, Mr. Durbin's question hit the fault line between liberal anxiety about theocratic intolerance and conservative fears about hostility to religion....And the "paper of record" goes on to discuss various advertising campaigns from the left and the right. I don't think parts of this article are fair or objective reporting. I think it was crafted to fan the flames.
On Monday, Republicans seized the opportunity for a pre-emptive strike. Mr. Cornyn called Professor Turley's account of the discussion "troubling, if true." In his own meeting with Judge Roberts on Monday, Mr. Cornyn recounted, "I said, 'I hate to see somebody going down this road because it really smacks of a religious test for public service.'
Comments:
<< Home
I must be cynical, but I think I'll wait for another analysis besides one from the NYT- especially with another 'he said, she said'
I would really like to think the NYT is an excellent paper, but they keep doing things that make that impossible for me to feel that way.
In their defense however, they aren't the only ones.
In their defense however, they aren't the only ones.
# posted by 
: 12:02 PM
: 12:02 PM
Tommy, no they aren't, which is one reason it's hard to read all the pontificating about "layers of fact-checking" with a straight face.
SC&A, I don't know why they couldn't just report accurately. This is irksome.
SC&A, I don't know why they couldn't just report accurately. This is irksome.
I would also like to point out that when Coburn (R-OK) asked Roberts about his faith, no one reported on it at all.
Hmm. Dingo, I would expect that in these private meetings some more candid questions would be asked and perhaps answered. The senators do have a significant responsibility to the public.
What's significant about this question is that it was leaked to the press by the questioner. This appears at least to be an attempt to whip up public sentiment about an issue that may or may not exist.
In short, as the story now stands, Durbin is looking like a slimeball.
Post a Comment
What's significant about this question is that it was leaked to the press by the questioner. This appears at least to be an attempt to whip up public sentiment about an issue that may or may not exist.
In short, as the story now stands, Durbin is looking like a slimeball.
<< Home
