Supreme Court Nominee supports "homosexual agenda" (1 Viewer)

[townie]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45691

"Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda. It suggests an absence of an understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged."

it's nice to see that at least the nominee isnt completley conservative, and more importantly, can consider the law over morality

 

[Xayma]

I like the whole "Phillips says it's now clear Roberts would not use "biblical morality in determining his position in particular cases." " I thought the role of the judges were to intepret whether the laws breached the constitution rather then how moral they were.

 

[Xayma]

Souter hardly is a massive Liberal!

I know which makes it funny.

But Townie come on you should never visit that site, lets look at some of the other headlines "Internet in jeopardy of U.N. control?" "Alan Keyes: Jail Jacko's flip-flopping jurors"

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I like the whole "Phillips says it's now clear Roberts would not use "biblical morality in determining his position in particular cases." " I thought the role of the judges were to intepret whether the laws breached the constitution rather then how moral they were.

Yes - it's amusing because these statements by conservative groups basically approve of judicial activism. (Something typically progressive in Australia at least.) But what is really scary is that they approve of a sort of "religious judicial activism"!

Because of course, it is the role of the court to apply the teachings of the Bible in resolving disputes. Imagine citing legal authorities - "I refer your honours to Job 3:14, in which your honours will clearly see..."