Another case where the New Media does what Old Media refuses to do

Sen. Dick Durbin and old media closed ranks around the question of whether Durbin had
asked Supreme Court nominee John Roberts "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral". Washington Times quoting LA Times

Durbin denied it. His spokesman denied it. The trouble is they were George Washington Univesity Law Professor Jonathan Turley's sources and there's email and phone calls to back Turley up.

Roberts answer to recuse himself was wrong. As Turley argues, religious belief should not disqualify a judge. The original Turley op-ed doesn't appear to be online.
Turley wrote:

It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws.

How could Durbin and his staff be so stupid as to deny conversations with a law professor on the record?

I didn't discuss this in the blog, but there's a discussion in Amy Welborn's blog of the Roberts statement from July 25.

Power Line and the other ConBlogs are discussing the Durbin-as-liar aspect of the story now.