cognitive dissident

Jonathan Turley writes in "The Faith of John Roberts" about a surprising admission from the Supreme Court nominee:

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. […] Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

Jeffrey Dubner points out in “Recuses, Recuses” at The American Prospect the implications of this seemingly trivial admission:

Oh, I don't see how that could be a problem. He'd only have to recuse himself from abortion and gay-rights cases ... and maybe the death penalty ... and perhaps pornography cases ... and possibly questions of church-state separation ... and, I suppose, poverty and social justice issues ... and then there's the moral acceptability of war ...

If Roberts isn’t willing to fulfill the SCOTUS job requirements, he should take the honorable route and simply decline the nomination. If Roberts accepts the nomination knowing that he cannot do the job, he’s perpetuating a fraud against our legal system. Turley summarized the problem this way:

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.

If only Roberts would take a stance like JFK did during the 1960 campaign, when he was en route to becoming the first Catholic president:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

[…]

I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

(12 September 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association)

Note that JFK was unable to provide a single example – however “remotely possible” – of his faith conflicting with his responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Roberts, however, sees potential conflicts across entire subjects of Constitutional law. Catholicism is clearly not the problem here – after all, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas are all Catholic – but rather Roberts’ determination to be appointed to a position for which he has already decided he is unsuited.

UPDATE (2 AUG 2005 2:29PM): Christopher Hitchens, with whom I have disagreed more frequently as he slouches further toward conservatism, defuses the fanciful "anti-Catholic bias" charges in his Slate article "Catholic Justice:"

It is already being insinuated, by those who want this thorny question de-thorned, that there is an element of discrimination involved. Why should this question be asked only of Catholics? Well, that's easy. The Roman Catholic Church claims the right to legislate on morals for all its members and to excommunicate them if they don't conform. The church is also a foreign state, which has diplomatic relations with Washington.

[...]

Thus, quite apart from the scandalous obstruction of American justice in which the church took part in the matter of Cardinal Law, we have increasingly firm papal dogmas on two issues that are bound to come before the court: abortion and the teaching of Darwin in schools. So, please do not accuse me of suggesting a "dual loyalty" among American Catholics. It is their own church, and its conduct and its teachings, that raise this question.