John Roberts Screws Up

In today's LA Times, Jonathan Turley reports and opines that "Roberts may have opened the door to the very questions that the White House sought to avoid with his nomination."

Seems that during their interview on the Hill the other day, Dick Durbin asked Roberts — a devout Catholic — "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

According to people present, the question appeared to discomfit Judge Smoothie. "[He]...answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself."

As Turley notes: 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.

Can you imagine if back in 1960 John Kennedy had so much as exhaled before replying when asked whether the Church or the Constitution would control his decision-making as president? We wouldn't have had Camelot. Neil Armstrong would not have taken his giant leap for mankind. Now, if Democrats dare to pursue the inquiry into Roberts' obvious conflict, we are likely to be tagged demonized once again as "anti-Catholic."

Turley (himself a Catholic, he tells us) goes on:

Roberts may insist that he was merely discussing the subject theoretically in an informal setting, and that he doesn't anticipate recusing himself on a regular basis. But it's not a subject that can be ignored; if he were to recuse himself on such issues as abortion and the death penalty, it would raise the specter of an evenly split Supreme Court on some of the nation's most important cases.

Roberts could now face difficult questions of fitness raised not only by the Senate but by his possible colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the court (and a devout Catholic). Last year, Scalia chastised Catholic judges who balk at imposing the death penalty — another immoral act according to the church: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty." [Emphasis mine — EDN]

[snip]

Unless Roberts denies the statement or somehow neutralizes it, it could seriously undermine the strategy of the White House for the confirmation hearings. For years, Roberts has been carefully groomed for greater things, one of a new generation of post-Bork nominees, young conservatives who have been virtually raised on a hydroponic farm for flawless conservative fruit. They learned to confine their advocacy to legal briefs so that their true views are only known to the White House and to God.

Now, however, Roberts may have opened the door to the very questions that the White House sought to avoid with his nomination. If he would have to recuse himself before ruling contrary to his faith, the Senate is entitled to ask specifically how he would handle obvious conflicts on issues such as abortion and the death penalty.

LINK

---

Off-topic but noteworthy, Turley's admirable bit of phrase-making:

raised on a hydroponic farm for flawless conservative fruit