Today, in her speech during the John Roberts hearings, Senator Feinstein said, "I recently traveled to Europe where I saw monuments enshrining the tragedies that have occurred in the name of religion. In Budapest along the River Danube there are 60 pairs of shoes covered in copper: women's, men's, small children's. During World War II, Hungarian fascist and Nazi soldiers forced thousands of Jews including men, women and small children to remove their shoes, as a final humiliation, before shooting them and letting their bodies fall and drift down the river. These shoes represent a powerful symbol of man's inhumanity...."

What was her point? Is she saying that John Roberts is some kind of religious fanatic that would do things like this? Is she saying that when deciding cases on religion, he should ever keep this in mind and, if so, why? Is she saying that all very religious people are to be thought of as Nazis? I don't get it.

I watched these hearings. Later on O'Rielly (?sp), Bill asked the judge to say what was the most ridiculous item of the hearings and this is what was brought up. It did not make any sense to either of them in the context of the hearing. I think they were talking about political grandstanding and that each senator was really speaking to the camera to try to score political points.

This does not make any sense. The Nazis were not a religion and so this did not come from religion. One could say that the Jews were persecuted because of their religion/culture. There is nothing to indicate that the candidate in any way would support persecution against the Jews or any other group. Perhaps she was trying to imply that the candidate was anti-Semetic? Perhaps she was just trying to appeal to Jews?

I think this is just a small part of the insanity that will be seen in this process.

So the likelihood was that the statement was not meant to be addressed to the candidate at all and was just meant to in some way please or address a concern held by a subset of her base. Maybe that subset believes that conservatives have too close ties to the religious which I guess they fear are akin to the Nazis????

Not every communication is straightforward. I think this was meant as a slur of Christianity (and therefore the candidate) with an attempt to make the public think that the democrats are the party for the Jews. This was a very strange comment and I would not be surprised if there is more discussion of it.

This came up again in today's hearings. Feinstein used it as a springboard to say that this is why it was important that there be "absolute separation of church and state." Roberts basically asked her to define what she meant by that and gave her two cases, one in which The Supreme Court rejected a monument of the Ten Commandments in one state while accepting it as constitutional in another state. He asked her which one of these would she say was "absolute separation of church and state." She just went on to another question.

It appears that she had a hidden agenda in this. She also had no response for his question for something that is not part of the constitution. I think this so-called "separation of church and state" is an example of judicial activism to repress Christianity. Is she a Christian?

Most of it was boring as I did not know what they were talking about. I thought Ted Kennedy and Biden (?sp) did not do themselves much good with their antics. From what I have seen, he will pass. I think he handled himself well.

I don't know what her religion is but I do think that there is an effort on the part of some people to repress the influence of conservative Christians. I actually found the hearings fascinating but I was only able to watch a few hours of it. I was very impressed with Roberts. How he answered those questions for seven hours WITH NO NOTES amazes me! I think that Biden and Kennedy were just being ridiculous. They didn't even let him answer the questions which reveals precisely how interested they were in what he had to say. They just wanted to attack for attack's sake.

^^^ Agree.

Just wanted to note that once again religion is a main focus of Miers' inquiry as well.

As I've been led to understand, those selected to be designated as "Jews" weren't singled-out on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices. They were so designated because of their parentage. But regardless of why, this group was perhaps referred to by Sen. Feinstein as an example of a minority for which the government had no regard. And perhaps the Nazi's were referred to as an example of a minority for which the government had an overwhelming regard.

Is there a parallel of sorts between the dominance in German government of the Nazi party then, and the dominance in U.S. government of today's ruling elite? Some may see a similarity, and seek to convince others of the potential for inhumanity resulting from lack of regard for those with whom we have no affinity.

The role of those sitting on the Supreme Court has been to hear the small voices of those who call for relief from the burdens imposed by those with more authority. While Supreme Court justices have other roles as well, I see Sen. Feinstein's remarks as a reminder that a politically-picked jurist has an obligation to defend the politically unpopular when no one else will.